High Court

2. Heard Sri D.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 393 of 2024, under Sections 123, 105, 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 7.12.2024 against the applicant and others and according to the FIR, applicant used to torture the sister of the informant aged about 27 years and stated that he will not permit her to perform marriage and he provided poisonous substance to her and stated that you should die and due to the pressure and abetement of the applicant, deceased consumed the poisonous substance and thereafter informant admitted her in the hospital where she died on 4.12.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submitted that actually applicant and deceased both were having love affair but as deceased was his distant relative, therefore, informant and his family members opposed their relationship and only due to their torture, she consumed poisonous substance and died.

7. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant was the person who provided alleged poisonous substance to the deceased and in this regard, after more than two weeks informant also provided a video footage to the Investigating Officer from which however, it reflects that applicant provided poisonous substance to her but even from the alleged CCTV footage, the details of which have been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application it reflects that on the prompting of the informant, deceased was giving answers and therefore, merely on the basis of such video footage, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant was the person who provided poison to her.

8. He further submitted that even if some poisonous substance was provided by the applicant to the deceased and thereafter, she consumed it then at this stage also, it cannot be said that due to the abetement of the applicant deceased committed suicide.

9. He further submitted that the law is by far now settled that for an offence under section 108 BNS, the abemtent should be of such a nature that except suicide, no option was left before the deceased and under the facts and circumstances of the case, this fact could not be reflected.

10. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 18.12.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation due to the abetement of the applicant deceased consumed poisonous substance which was provided by applicant to her and she died but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after three days from her death.

14. Further, however, from the details of CCTV footage which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application, it reflects that the alleged poisonous substance was provided to the deceased by the applicant but from the perusal of the CCTV footage, it also reflects that on the prompting of the informant deceased stated this fact to the informant and her statement does not appear to be given voluntarily.

15. Further, the alleged CCTV footage was provided by the informant after two weeks and its genuineness is still to be proved.

16. Further, considering the fact that for offence of abetement of suicide, it is necessary to show that deceased was not having any option except to commit suicide and such fact is not reflected from the facts of the case, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if applicant provided the alleged poisonous substance to the deceased then also it cannot be said that due to his abetement, she committed suicide.

17. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, defence taken by the applicant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

18. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 18.12.2024.

19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Shivam Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Ankita

2. Heard Sri D.M.Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, learned Brief Holder for the State- respondent.

3. The instant application has been filed seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 393 of 2024, under Sections 123, 105, 352, 351(3) BNS, Police Station Sachendi, District Kanpur Nagar, during pendency of the trial in the court below.

4. FIR of the present case was lodged on 7.12.2024 against the applicant and others and according to the FIR, applicant used to torture the sister of the informant aged about 27 years and stated that he will not permit her to perform marriage and he provided poisonous substance to her and stated that you should die and due to the pressure and abetement of the applicant, deceased consumed the poisonous substance and thereafter informant admitted her in the hospital where she died on 4.12.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that on the basis of false allegations, applicant has been made accused in the present matter.

6. He further submitted that actually applicant and deceased both were having love affair but as deceased was his distant relative, therefore, informant and his family members opposed their relationship and only due to their torture, she consumed poisonous substance and died.

7. He further submitted that however, as per allegation, applicant was the person who provided alleged poisonous substance to the deceased and in this regard, after more than two weeks informant also provided a video footage to the Investigating Officer from which however, it reflects that applicant provided poisonous substance to her but even from the alleged CCTV footage, the details of which have been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application it reflects that on the prompting of the informant, deceased was giving answers and therefore, merely on the basis of such video footage, at this stage, it cannot be said that applicant was the person who provided poison to her.

8. He further submitted that even if some poisonous substance was provided by the applicant to the deceased and thereafter, she consumed it then at this stage also, it cannot be said that due to the abetement of the applicant deceased committed suicide.

9. He further submitted that the law is by far now settled that for an offence under section 108 BNS, the abemtent should be of such a nature that except suicide, no option was left before the deceased and under the facts and circumstances of the case, this fact could not be reflected.

10. He further submitted that applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 18.12.2024.

11. Per contra, learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the arguments on facts advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.

12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case.

13. However, as per allegation due to the abetement of the applicant deceased consumed poisonous substance which was provided by applicant to her and she died but it reflects, FIR of the present case was lodged after three days from her death.

14. Further, however, from the details of CCTV footage which has been annexed alongwith the supplementary affidavit filed in support to the instant bail application, it reflects that the alleged poisonous substance was provided to the deceased by the applicant but from the perusal of the CCTV footage, it also reflects that on the prompting of the informant deceased stated this fact to the informant and her statement does not appear to be given voluntarily.

15. Further, the alleged CCTV footage was provided by the informant after two weeks and its genuineness is still to be proved.

16. Further, considering the fact that for offence of abetement of suicide, it is necessary to show that deceased was not having any option except to commit suicide and such fact is not reflected from the facts of the case, this Court also finds merit in the argument advanced by learned counsel for the applicant that even if applicant provided the alleged poisonous substance to the deceased then also it cannot be said that due to his abetement, she committed suicide.

17. Further, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, defence taken by the applicant, cannot be ruled out, at this stage.

18. Further, applicant is having no criminal history and he is in jail in the present matter since 18.12.2024.

19. Further, law is settled that unless proven guilty, an accused is deemed to be innocent.

20. Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, discussed above, in my view, applicant is entitled to be released on bail.

21. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant bail application is allowed.

22. Let the applicant-Shivam Singh, be released on bail in the aforesaid case on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the dates fixed, unless his personal presence is exempted. (ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly, make inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal and anti-social activity.

23. In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution will be at liberty to move an application before this Court for cancellation of the bail of the applicant.

24. It is clarified that the observations made herein are limited to the facts brought in by the parties pertaining to the disposal of bail application and the said observations shall have no bearing on the merits of the case during trial. Order Date :- 10.3.2025 Ankita