State of Uttarakhand v. Mr. Susheel Kumar, learned counsel holding brief of Mr. Gaurav Singh

2. According to the State’s case, an FIR dated 18.04.2024 was lodged by the complainant, the father of the deceased Rakhi, alleging that his daughter had committed suicide on 14.04.2024. It is alleged that prior to her death, the deceased was being blackmailed and mentally harassed by the present applicant, Rohan. The complainant stated that the applicant possessed certain photographs of the deceased and was First Bail Application No. 2056 of 2024-----------Rohan vs. State of Uttarakhand 1 Ashish Naithani J. using them to blackmail her, which drove her to take the extreme step of ending her life.

3. On 14.04.2024, the deceased was found hanging in her room. Upon arrival, the police conducted inquest proceedings and allegedly recovered a handwritten suicide note purportedly left by the deceased. The note mentioned the name of the Applicant and accused him of blackmailing her.

4. Based on the complaint, Case Crime No. 314 of 2024 was registered under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar. The Applicant was subsequently arrested and has been in custody since. The investigation is complete, and the charge sheet has been filed. During the trial, one witness, Raju Singh (PW–1), has already been examined before the learned trial court.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.

6. Learned counsel for the Applicant, Mr. Gaurav Singh contended that the Applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated. It is submitted that there is an unexplained delay of four days in lodging the FIR, which itself casts a serious doubt on the veracity of the State’s story. The police station is situated merely about one kilometre from the place of occurrence, yet the father of the deceased did not report the incident promptly, suggesting that the case was an afterthought.

7. Learned Counsel for the Applicant further argued that the alleged suicide note, which forms the very foundation of the prosecution case, has not been sent for forensic handwriting examination, and its authenticity thus remains unverified. It was submitted that even the FIR does not refer to any suicide note, though the police claim to have recovered it at the very outset. This inconsistency, it is urged, strongly First Bail Application No. 2056 of 2024-----------Rohan vs. State of Uttarakhand 2 Ashish Naithani J. suggests that the note was subsequently fabricated and planted with a view to falsely implicate the Applicant.

8. Learned counsel for the Applicant contended that there is no evidence of any photograph being recovered or verified, and the entire allegation of blackmail is based on hearsay and assumption. The Applicant is a young boy of 20 years with no criminal antecedents. It was submitted that the essential ingredients of abetment under Section 306 IPC are absent. There is no evidence that the applicant either instigated or actively aided the deceased to commit suicide.

9. It is lastly submitted that the Applicant has been in custody for a long time, and further incarceration would serve no purpose, as the investigation has concluded and the charge sheet has been filed. It was thus prayed that the applicant be released on bail on suitable terms.

10. Learned Counsel for the State vehemently opposed the bail application, contending that the offence alleged is grave and serious in nature. It was argued that the suicide note left by the deceased specifically names the Applicant and details the acts of blackmail and continuous mental harassment allegedly inflicted upon her, which directly drove her to end her life. It was further submitted that the statements of witnesses, including Raju Singh (PW-1), Tara Singh, Saraswati, Geeta Devi, and Prem Kumar, lend corroboration to the prosecution case and prima facie establish the active involvement of the Applicant in abetting the commission of suicide.

11. Learned Counsel for the State further submitted that although the handwriting examination report from the Forensic Science Laboratory is still awaited, the contents of the alleged note, when read in conjunction with the oral testimonies of the witnesses, are sufficient at this stage to make out a prima facie case against the Applicant. It was First Bail Application No. 2056 of 2024-----------Rohan vs. State of Uttarakhand 3 Ashish Naithani J. also urged that the Applicant is a resident of another State (Uttar Pradesh), and there exists a reasonable apprehension that he may abscond or attempt to influence witnesses if released on bail. The prosecution, therefore, prayed for rejection of the bail application.

12. The deceased, Rakhi, was a young woman who ended her life in unfortunate circumstances. The prosecution case, at this stage, primarily rests on two sets of material, namely the alleged suicide note and the oral testimonies of witnesses. A perusal of the note reveals that the deceased mentioned the name of the Applicant and accused him of blackmail.

13. The note, on its face, attributes her mental distress and decision to commit suicide to the acts ascribed to the Applicant. The existence of the note, when read alongside the statements of PW-1 Raju Singh and other witnesses, lends preliminary support to the prosecution version.

14. The contention raised regarding the delay in lodging the FIR, though relevant, does not, in itself, demolish the State’s case, especially when the suicide and its circumstances are not in dispute. Similarly, while the question of whether the suicide note is genuine or fabricated is a matter for trial, at this stage, this Court cannot conclusively hold the alleged note to be false merely on account of its omission from the FIR.Such issues are factual in nature and will require an appreciation of evidence during trial.

15. It is well settled that at the stage of bail, the Court is not required to conduct a meticulous examination of the evidence but only to see whether there exists a prima facie case against the applicant.

16. In the present case, the allegation against the Applicant involves mental harassment of the deceased leading to her death, which is a serious charge punishable with imprisonment extending up to ten years. First Bail Application No. 2056 of 2024-----------Rohan vs. State of Uttarakhand 4 Ashish Naithani J.

17. This Court also takes note that some material witnesses are yet to be examined, and the possibility of the Applicant influencing them cannot be ruled out. The Applicant’s residence outside the State further raises apprehension regarding his availability during trial.

18. At this stage, the material on record prima facie discloses the applicant’s involvement, and the gravity of the offence, coupled with the stage of the trial, dissuades this Court from exercising discretion in his favour. ORDER For the reasons recorded above, this Court finds no merit in the present bail application. The material on record prima facie indicates the involvement of the Applicant, and the gravity of the offence, taken together with the stage of the trial, dissuades this Court from exercising its discretion in favour of the Applicant. Accordingly, the bail application filed by the Applicant, Rohan, in connection with Case Crime No. 314 of 2024, under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Haridwar, is rejected. (Ashish Naithani, J.) Dated: 20.09.2025 NR/ First Bail Application No. 2056 of 2024-----------Rohan vs. State of Uttarakhand 5 Ashish Naithani J.