High Court · 2025

Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned counsel for t he applicant .

2. Mr. Ak shay Lat w al, lear ned A.G.A. for t he St at e.

3. The applicant – Sunny Pal, who is in j udicial cust ody in connect ion wit h FI R/ Case Crim e No. 265 of 2024, under Sect ions 80( 2) , 85 of B.N.S. and 3/ 4 of Dow ry Prohibit ion Act , at P.S.- Sahaspur , Dist rict regist ered Dehradun, has sought his r elease on bail.

4. Hear d lear ned counsel for t he part ies and per used t he r ecords. counsel Lear ned

5. t he applicant subm it s t hat t he applicant has been falsely im plicat ed in t he case and is languishing in j ail since 08.09.024; t he applicant is husband of t he deceased; he has never dem anded dowry; t he daught er of t he com plainant has always been t r eat ed wit h full respect and has never been t r eat ed wit h any physical or m ent al cruelt y; t he applicant has been m ade an t he basis of sur m ises and accused on conj ect ures; t her e is no independent wit ness of t he incident and t he deceased com m it t ed suicide because she was not happy wit h t he m arriage and her m arriage was solem nized against her wishes. Learned counsel furt her subm it s t hat t her e ar e no specific allegat ions levelled against t he applicant in t he FI R. Lear ned counsel for t he applicant has 6. relied upon a j udgm ent passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in t he case of Prakash and Ot her s Vs. St at e of Maharasht ra and Anot her , report ed in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835. Paragr aph 22 and 28 of t he j udgm ent is ext ract ed her einbelow: - “ 2 2 . I t could t hus be seen t hat t his Court observed t hat in cases of alleged abet m ent of suicide, t here m ust be a proof of direct or indirect act ( s) of incit em ent t o t he com m ission of suicide. I t has been held t hat since t he cause of suicide part icularly in t he cont ext of t he offence of abet m ent of suicide involves m ult ifacet ed and com plex at t ribut es of hum an behaviour, t he court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of t he act ( s) of incit em ent t o t he com m ission of suicide. This Court furt her observed t hat a m ere allegat ion of harassm ent of t he deceased by anot her person would not suffice unless t here is such act ion on t he part of t he accused which com pels t he person t o com m it suicide. This Court also em phasised t hat such an offending act ion ought t o be proxim at e t o t he t im e of occurrence. I t was furt her clarified t hat t he quest ion of m ens rea on t he part of t he accused in such cases would be exam ined wit h reference t o t he act ual act s and deeds of t he accused. I t was furt her held t hat if t he act s and deeds are only of such nat ure where t he accused int ended not hing m ore t han harassm ent or a snap- show of anger, a part icular case m ay fall short of t he offence of abet m ent of suicide, however, if t he accused k ept on irrit at ing or annoying t he deceased by words or deeds unt il t he deceased react ed or was provoked, a part icular case m ay be t hat of abet m ent of suicide. This Court held t hat owing t o t he fact t hat t he hum an m ind could be affect ed and could react in m yriad ways and t hat sim ilar act ions are dealt wit h different ly by different persons, each case is required t o be dealt wit h it s own fact s and circum st ances.” “ 2 8 . This Court in t he case of Naresh Kum ar v. St at e of Haryana, observed as follows: - “ 20. This Court in Mariano Ant o Bruno v. St at e [ Mariano Ant o Bruno v. St at e, ( 2023) 15 SCC 560 : 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , aft er referring t o t he in cont ext of abovereferred decisions culpabilit y under Sect ion 306I PC observed as under : ( SCC para 45) rendered “ 45. … I t is also t o be borne in m ind t hat in cases of alleged abet m ent of suicide, t here m ust be proof of direct or indirect act s of incit em ent t o t he com m ission of suicide. M e r e l y o n t h e a l l e g a t i o n o f h a r a s sm e n t w i t h o u t a ct i o n p r o x i m a t e t o t h e t i m e o f o cc u r r e n ce o n t h e p a r t o f t h e p e r so n t o co m m i t su i ci d e , co n v i ct i o n i n t e r m s o f Se ct i o n 3 0 6 I PC i s n o t su s t a i n a b l e .” t h e a ccu s e d w h i ch l e d o r co m p e l l e d p o s i t i v e b e i n g t h e r e a n y

7. Per cont ra, vehem ent ly opposed t he bail. learned St at e Counsel

8. Having consider ed t he subm issions, under t he fact s and cir cum st ances of t he case, t his Court is of t he view t hat it is a case fit for bail and t he applicant deser ves t o be enlarged on bail.

9. Accordingly, allowed. t he bail applicat ion

10. Let t he applicant be released on bail on his ex ecut ing a personal bond and furnishing t wo reliable suret ies each of t he lik e am ount , t o t he sat isfact ion of t he court concerned. Uj j wal ( A l o k M a h r a J.) 11.06.2025