High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:113186 Court No. - 86 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 6570 of 2024 Applicant :- Pravesh Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashutosh Pandey,Pankaj Sharma Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. This application has been moved on behalf of the applicant - Pravesh Kumar seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 742 of 2022 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Jagdishpura, District- Agra. 3. It has been alleged in the FIR that the deceased was married with Harshvardhan but she was molested by the present applicant which caused quarrel between their families and it was also told by the co-accused persons Satyavari and Arun that the applicant was having illicit relations with the deceased and they have procured some obscene video in this respect and being depressed and frustrated with that deceased committed suicide by administering poisonous substance in the night of 30.9.2022 and subsequently died. F.I.R. was lodged on 24.12.2022 and investigation started, which culminated into charge sheet. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that applicant is innocent and he has apprehension of his arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against him. Allegations levelled against him are false. After completion of investigation charge sheet has been submitted. It is further submitted that there is no suicide note made by the deceased before committing suicide. Applicant has no concern with the deceased. No obscene video, as alleged in the F.I.R., has been collected by the Investigating Officer and as a matter of fact marriage of the applicant was settled with the sister of the deceased but the husband of the deceased was opposing for the same and that caused a grudge between the applicant and the husband of the deceased. It is also submitted that the essential ingredients to establish the offence under Section 306 IPC are completely missing in this matter. There is no statement of the deceased before her death wherein she had complained of the present applicant in respect of her alleged molestation. After the death of the deceased a compromise took place between both families and the informant of the case had taken Rupees Four Lakhs from the in-laws of the deceased but subsequently F.I.R. was lodged on the basis of false allegations. It is further submitted that F.I.R. in this case has been lodged three months after the incident without any plausible explanation of delay. Applicant has no criminal history to his credit. It is further submitted that the applicant has been cooperative in the investigation. It is also submitted that in the F.I.R. the character assassination of the deceased was made by the co-accused Satyavari and Arun and nothing was spoken by the present applicant in the Panchayat or before any other person regarding the bad character of the deceased, as appears from the contents of the F.I.R. It is further submitted that no cogent evidence was collected by the Investigating Officer even on the basis of statement of the husband of the deceased and other witnesses to the effect that the applicant instigated or abeted the deceased in any way to commit suicide. It has been submitted that in case applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. It is lastly submitted that the applicant was granted anticipatory bail during investigation by this Court on 6.9.2023 vide Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 9716 of 2023 and he has not misused the said liberty. 5. Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but however, could not dispute the factual aspect as submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant. It is further submitted that since cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained, viscera was preserved and sent for FSL for chemical analysis but no viscera report has been received. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record carefully. 7. From the perusal of the record prima facie, the essential ingredients to establish a case under Section 306 IPC appear to be missing. There is no suicide note made by the deceased. 8. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualise the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC thus criminalises sustained incitement for suicide. 9. In M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 10. In Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the law on the subject finally by holding that the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, likelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 11. In Aman Preet Singh v. CBI, (2022) 13 SCC 764, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that : "11. A reading of the aforesaid shows that it is the guiding principle for a Magistrate while exercising powers under Section 170CrPC which had been set out. The Magistrate or the Court empowered to take cognizance or try the accused has to accept the charge-sheet forthwith and proceed in accordance with the procedure laid down under Section 173CrPC. It has been rightly observed that in such a case the Magistrate or the Court is required to invariably issue a process of summons and not warrant of arrest. In case he seeks to exercise the discretion of issuing warrants of arrest, he is required to record the reasons as contemplated under Section 87CrPC that the accused has either been absconding or shall not obey the summons or has refused to appear despite proof of due service of summons upon him. In fact the observations in sub-para (iii) above by the High Court are in the nature of caution. 12. Insofar as the present case is concerned and the general principles under Section 170 CrPC, the most apposite observations are in sub-para (v) of the High Court judgment in the context of an accused in a non-bailable offence whose custody was not required during the period of investigation. In such a scenario, it is appropriate that the accused is released on bail as the circumstances of his having not been arrested during investigation or not being produced in custody are itself sufficient to entitle him to be released on bail. The rationale has been succinctly set out that if a person has been enlarged and free for many years and has not even been arrested during investigation, to suddenly direct his arrest and to be incarcerated merely because charge-sheet has been filed would be contrary to the governing principles for grant of bail. We could not agree more with this." 12. Considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, nature of accusation, role of applicant and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicant till end of trial. 13. The application is allowed accordingly. 14. In the event of arrest of the applicant, he shall be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall make himself available before the Court concerned on the date fixed in the matter and will cooperate in the trial. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him/her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police office. (iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. Concerned. 15. In case of default of any of the conditions, the same may be a ground for cancellation of protection granted to the applicant. Order Date :- 16.7.2024 safi