Dhani Ram v. St at e of Ut t arakhand

biological fat her of t he child born t o Ms. Kavit a. 1

4. I t is alleged t hat Kavit a and her fam ily m em bers, along wit h t he present applicant and four ot her nam ed co- accused, had exert ed sust ained pressure upon t he deceased t o m arry Kavit a, alleging him t o be t he fat her of her child. The com plainant assert s t hat such psychological coercion led his son int o a st at e of m ent al dist ress, ult im at ely result ing in his suicide.

5. During t he course of invest igat ion, t he applicant and t he co- accused were charge- sheet ed under Sect ion 306 I PC. The t rial com m enced t hereaft er, and eight prosecut ion wit nesses have been exam ined t ill dat e.

6. Learned counsel for t he applicant subm it s t hat t he FI R suffers from significant and unexplained delay, having been lodged nearly four m ont hs aft er t he incident . While t he St at e at t ribut es t his t o t he pendency of t he DNA report , it is point ed out t hat no st eps were t aken during t his period t o lodge even a prelim inary report or com plaint , which raises doubt s about t he spont aneit y and credibilit y of t he allegat ions.

7. I t furt her cont ended t hat t he core allegat ion t hat t he applicant pressurized t he deceased t o m arry is neit her support ed by any docum ent ary m at erial nor backed by cont em poraneous m essages, t hreat s, or act s of coercion t hat could sat isfy t he t est of abet m ent in law.

8. I t is em phasized t hat t here is no suicide not e, and t he st at em ent s of wit nesses do not reveal any direct or proxim at e act by t he applicant t hat inst igat ed or facilit at ed t he deceased’s suicide. The applicant 's 2 alleged role is indist inct from t hat of t he co- accused — Ram a Devi, Anand Ram , and Mohit Kum ar — all of whom have been grant ed bail. The parit y principle, it is subm it t ed, is fully applicable in t he present case, as t he applicant is sim ilarly placed and no dist inguishing fact or has been dem onst rat ed.

9. The applicant has been in cust ody for m ore t han t hree years and has no proven ant ecedent s direct ly bearing on t he present offence, is willing t o abide by any condit ion im posed by t he Court and undert akes not t o m isuse t he libert y, if grant ed.

10. On t he ot her hand, learned St at e Counsel subm it s t hat t he applicant ’s case is dist inct from t hat of t he co- accused. I t is assert ed t hat as per t he DNA report , t he applicant is t he biological fat her of t he child, and t hus t he role at t ribut ed t o him is not m erely peripheral but cent ral t o t he alleged cause of suicide. I t is also cont ended t hat t he applicant has already been convict ed and sent enced t o 20 years’ im prisonm ent in a separat e POCSO case, and his enlargem ent on bail in t he present m at t er m ay result in a t hreat t o t he int egrit y of t rial proceedings.

11. Heard learned counsel for t he part ies and perused t he records.

12. The foundat ional quest ion before t his Court is whet her, in t he fact s and circum st ances of t he present case, t he cont inued incarcerat ion of t he applicant is warrant ed, part icularly when t he allegat ions pert ain t o psychological abet m ent t o suicide an offence which by it s very nat ure dem ands rigorous j udicial scrut iny of m ens rea, proxim it y, and t he direct ness of t he causal 3 link.

13. The Court not es at t he out set t hat t here is no suicide not e left by t he deceased. This assum es relevance because, in cases under Sect ion 306 I PC, a suicide not e while not indispensable oft en serves t o est ablish t he m ent al st at e of t he deceased and t he ext ent of alleged inducem ent or inst igat ion by t he accused. I t s absence places t he St at e’s subst ant ially on inferent ial foot ing.

14. The Hon’ble Suprem e Court in Gu r ch a r a n Si n g h v . St a t e o f Pu n j a b , ( 2 0 1 7 ) 1 SCC 4 3 3 , reit erat ed t hat t he ingredient s of abet m ent require a posit ive act of inst igat ion or int ent ional aid. The Court held t hat m ere harassm ent or discord, unless shown t o have a proxim at e link wit h t he act of suicide, would not sat isfy t he rigours of Sect ion 306 I PC.

15. I n t he present case, while t here is an allegat ion of pressure exert ed upon t he deceased t o m arry Kavit a, t he St at e fails t o dem onst rat e t hat t he alleged pressure was cont inuous, deliberat e, or proxim at e in t im e so as t o const it ut e a direct cause of t he deceased’s suicide.The deceased had ret urned on bail on 29.02.2020, and t he suicide occurred nearly six lat er. The absence of int ervening act s of provocat ion, com m unicat ion, confront at ion significant ly weakens t he causal nexus.

16. Furt herm ore, t he St at e it self relies heavily on t he DNA report t o dist inguish t he present applicant from t he co- accused. However, t he exist ence of a biological relat ionship wit h t he child, even est ablished, does not by it self const it ut e a crim inal 4 offence. I t does not ipso fact o render t he applicant liable for abet m ent t o suicide unless it is shown t hat he m isused t his posit ion t o harass or coerce t he deceased.

17. I t is also im port ant t o not e t hat t he t rial has progressed subst ant ially. Eight out of t he t ot al list ed prosecut ion wit nesses have been exam ined. The m at erial part of t he prosecut ion evidence, t herefore, st ands recorded. There is no allegat ion t hat t he applicant has at t em pt ed t o t am per wit h t he evidence or t o influence any of t he wit nesses during t he period of cust ody ext ending over t hree years.

18. The Suprem e Court in Sa n j a y Ch a n d r a v . CBI , ( 2 0 1 2 ) 1 SCC 4 0 , underscored t he necessit y of safeguarding personal libert y and warned against prolonged pre- t rial incarcerat ion. I n D a t a r a m Si n g h v . St a t e o f U.P., ( 2 0 1 8 ) 3 SCC 2 2 , it was observed t hat “ a person is believed t o be innocent unt il found guilt y” and bail should not be denied m erely on t he basis of apprehension unless grounded in credible m at erial.

19. As regards t he ot her case in which t he applicant st ands convict ed under t he POCSO Act , t his Court is m indful of t he seriousness of t hat convict ion. However, t he legal principle rem ains t hat each case m ust st and on it s own foot ing. The fact of convict ion in anot her m at t er, while relevant for general assessm ent , cannot be det erm inat ive unless it bears on t he risk of flight , t am pering, or repeat offence in t he inst ant case

20. Unless t here is a m at erial suggest ion t hat t he applicant is likely t o abscond or obst ruct j ust ice in t he present case, denial of bail solely on t he ground of anot her convict ion m ay am ount t o overreach and 5 conflat ion of unrelat ed causes. ORDER Let t he applicant , Dhani Ram , be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- wit h t wo suret ies of t he like am ount t o t he sat isfact ion of t he Court concerned.The applicant shall not t am per wit h t he evidence, shall not at t em pt t o influence any wit ness, and shall appear before t he t rial court on each dat e fixed. I n case of breach of any of t hese condit ions, t he St at e shall be at libert y t o m ove for cancellat ion of bail. allowed Accordingly, t he bail applicat ion st ands _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ A SH I SH N A I TH A N I , J. Dt : 16.04.2025 SB SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5a a08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7F F0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA 6