High Court

2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.145 of 2024, under Sections 69 and 108 B.N.S., Police Station Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The husband of the deceased had remarried elsewhere, as such, she started living with the applicant who established corporeal relationship with her on the false promise of marriage.

5. There are allegations that the applicant had forced her to abort her fetus several times by administering her certain medicines.

6. On 01.09.2024, the applicant is stated to have sent off the deceased from his house, as such, forcing her to lead a life of destitution and vagrancy. Subsequently, the matter was settled between the parties and the deceased was taken back to the house of the applicant on 04.09.2024.

7. The applicant and his brother are stated to have forced the deceased to consume certain poisonous material on 05.09.2024, as such, she succumbed to the said administering of poison. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

8. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

9. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

10. The applicant as a bona fide person had got the victim admitted and at the time of admission at the hospital, the real brother of the applicant Jayant Mishra was present. The said fact stands fortified from the police memo sent by the P.H.C., Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad to the police station.

11. The applicant was also present at the time of admitting the deceased at the hospital, which stands fortified from the statement of the doctor examining her.

12. It is a clear-cut case of false implication, which stands fortified from the fact that the father Chhoti Singh and other family members of the deceased, were the panch witness in the inquest proceedings taken up on 05.09.2024 itself. The other family members are panch witness nos.1 and 2 and the father Chhoti Singh, who happens to be the husband of the informant, is the panch witness no.3.

13. At the stage of said inquest proceedings, there is no whisper of a single word against the applicant or any other accused persons mentioned in the FIR.

14. There are statements of several neighbours, including one Sanjay Pathak who has categorically stated that the family members of the deceased used to pressurize her to marry the applicant, which could not be done as it was advised by her advocate that it is mandatory to give a notice of 20 days which could not be given. Even the Aadhar Card of the deceased bore the name of her earlier husband in it, as such, the marriage could not be solemnized.

15. There is statement of the real sister of the deceased Meena @ Usha who has categorically alleged that the informant and the deceased were of promiscuous character. She has made serious allegations against other family members also.

16. The ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. do not stand fulfilled as there is no allegation against the applicant of having abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

17. It is true that the deceased was a live-in partner of the applicant, but nowhere it can be implied that there was an overt act of the applicant to abet the deceased to commit suicide.

18. The complete prosecution story does not stand on its leg, as such, the other co-accused persons were exonerated by the police and the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted qua the applicant only.

19. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

20. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.09.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

21. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. CONCLUSION:

22. The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four- corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”

23. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

24. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

25. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

26. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

27. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

28. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A.

29. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of four days in institution of FIR coupled with the fact that the family members of the deceased were the witnesses of inquest proceedings under taken on 05.09.2024 itself, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

30. Let the applicant- Nitin Mishra Alias Satyam involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C/351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

31. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

32. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal)

2. Heard Sri Amit Daga, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Ashwani Kumar Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.145 of 2024, under Sections 69 and 108 B.N.S., Police Station Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad, during the pendency of trial. PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The husband of the deceased had remarried elsewhere, as such, she started living with the applicant who established corporeal relationship with her on the false promise of marriage.

5. There are allegations that the applicant had forced her to abort her fetus several times by administering her certain medicines.

6. On 01.09.2024, the applicant is stated to have sent off the deceased from his house, as such, forcing her to lead a life of destitution and vagrancy. Subsequently, the matter was settled between the parties and the deceased was taken back to the house of the applicant on 04.09.2024.

7. The applicant and his brother are stated to have forced the deceased to consume certain poisonous material on 05.09.2024, as such, she succumbed to the said administering of poison. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:

8. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.

9. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused.

10. The applicant as a bona fide person had got the victim admitted and at the time of admission at the hospital, the real brother of the applicant Jayant Mishra was present. The said fact stands fortified from the police memo sent by the P.H.C., Shamshabad, District Farrukhabad to the police station.

11. The applicant was also present at the time of admitting the deceased at the hospital, which stands fortified from the statement of the doctor examining her.

12. It is a clear-cut case of false implication, which stands fortified from the fact that the father Chhoti Singh and other family members of the deceased, were the panch witness in the inquest proceedings taken up on 05.09.2024 itself. The other family members are panch witness nos.1 and 2 and the father Chhoti Singh, who happens to be the husband of the informant, is the panch witness no.3.

13. At the stage of said inquest proceedings, there is no whisper of a single word against the applicant or any other accused persons mentioned in the FIR.

14. There are statements of several neighbours, including one Sanjay Pathak who has categorically stated that the family members of the deceased used to pressurize her to marry the applicant, which could not be done as it was advised by her advocate that it is mandatory to give a notice of 20 days which could not be given. Even the Aadhar Card of the deceased bore the name of her earlier husband in it, as such, the marriage could not be solemnized.

15. There is statement of the real sister of the deceased Meena @ Usha who has categorically alleged that the informant and the deceased were of promiscuous character. She has made serious allegations against other family members also.

16. The ingredients of Section 108 B.N.S. do not stand fulfilled as there is no allegation against the applicant of having abetted the deceased to commit suicide.

17. It is true that the deceased was a live-in partner of the applicant, but nowhere it can be implied that there was an overt act of the applicant to abet the deceased to commit suicide.

18. The complete prosecution story does not stand on its leg, as such, the other co-accused persons were exonerated by the police and the final report (charge-sheet) has been submitted qua the applicant only.

19. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.

20. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 16.09.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:

21. The bail application has been opposed but the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant could not be disputed. CONCLUSION:

22. The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four- corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.”

23. The Supreme Court in the case of Niranjan Singh and another vs. Prabhakar Rajaram Kharote and Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided detailed examination of the evidence and elaborate documentation of the merits of the case as no party should have the impression that his case has been prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of case is needed but it is not the same as an exhaustive exploration of the merits in the order itself.

24. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

25. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been recapitulated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

26. Reiterating the aforesaid view the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

27. Learned A.G.A. could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant.

28. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned A.G.A.

29. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, taking into consideration the delay of four days in institution of FIR coupled with the fact that the family members of the deceased were the witnesses of inquest proceedings under taken on 05.09.2024 itself, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

30. Let the applicant- Nitin Mishra Alias Satyam involved in aforementioned case crime number be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. (i) The applicant shall not tamper with evidence. (ii) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on dates fixed for (1) opening of the case, (2) framing of charge and (3) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C/351 B.N.S.S. If in the opinion of the Trial Court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Trial Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

31. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

32. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 7.3.2025 (Ravi Kant) (Justice Krishan Pahal)