High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:178852 Court No. - 73 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 10096 of 2023 Applicant :- Mukhtyar Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Dutt Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dhiraj Singh
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, learned AGA and perused the material available on record. 2. This application for anticipatory bail has been filed by in applicants- Mukhtyar Singh & Smt. Kuldeep Rajkaur connection with Case Crime No. 0362 of 2022, under sections 498-A, 306, 323, 342 IPC & 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S. Najibabad, District Bijnor. 3. The prosecution story as unfolded in the F.I.R. is that the deceased was residing with her husband in New York, U.S.A. where she was assaulted and harassed and subjected to cruelty by her husband, co-accused, Ranjotveer Singh while she was in family way for demand of additional dowry of Rs.25 lakhs and the present accused applicants, who are the father-in-law and mother- in-law of the victim, used to make complaints to her husband against her and he was instigated by them to make pressure upon the informant/victim for grant of additional dowry due to which, she was bitterly assaulted and harassed by her husband. Ultimately, she committed suicide by hanging and a video clip was also prepared by her. F.I.R. was lodged on 05.08.2022, which culminated into charge sheet. 4. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent and they have apprehension of arrest in the above-mentioned case, whereas there is no credible evidence against them. Allegations levelled against the applicants are false. After investigation charge sheet has been submitted in the matter. It is further submitted that the applicants never made any demand of dowry nor they committed any act of cruelty and harassment to the deceased herself. It is next submitted that even the prosecution story reveals this fact that during the entire sequence of events, the applicants were residing in India whereas the offence has been committed in New York, U.S.A. It is also submitted that the alleged video clip relating to the suicide of the deceased is a concocted piece of evidence and even in the aforesaid clip, it is nowhere stated by the deceased that the applicants in any way or at any time instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. It is next submitted that there is no evidence on record that the applicants in any way abetted or provoked the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that during investigation, Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.10784 of 2022 was moved by the applicants wherein a protection was granted in their favour of this Court vide order dated 18.08.2022 which was never misused by them. They have been cooperative throughout the investigation. Lastly, it has been submitted that the essential ingredients to establish the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. against the present applicant are completely missing in this case. In case applicants are granted anticipatory bail, they shall not misuse the liberty of bail and would obey all conditions of bail. 5. Learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail. 6. In the present matter, admittedly, the present applicants were not residing with the deceased and her husband at the time of commission of offence rather they were living in a separate country. It further appears that the applicants are said to be cooperative during the course of investigation and they are having no criminal antecedents to their credits. After submission of charge sheet, no custodial interrogation seems to be required. 7. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualise the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC thus criminalises sustained incitement for suicide. 8. In M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 9. Although the charge sheet has been submitted in this matter, but in Sushila Aggarwal and others vs. State (NCT of Delhi) and another, (2020) 5 SCC 1, the Hon'ble Apex Court has settled the controversy finally by holding the anticipatory bail need not be of limited duration invariably. In appropriate case, it can continue upto conclusion of trial. It has been further held therein that anticipatory bail granted can, depending on the conduct and behavior of the accused, continue after filing of the charge sheet till end of trial. It has been further held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that while considering an application for grant of anticipatory bail, the court has to consider the nature of the offence, the role of the person, the likelihood of his influencing the course of investigation, or tampering with evidence including intimidating witnesses, llikelihood of fleeing justice, such as leaving the country, etc. It has further been held that Courts ought to be generally guided by considerations such as the nature and gravity of the offences, the role attributed to the applicant, and the facts of the case, while considering whether to grant anticipatory bail, or refuse it. Whether to grant or not is a matter of discretion. 10. Hence, considering the settled principles of law regarding anticipatory bail, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusation, role of applicants and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion of the merits of the case, in my view, it is a fit case for anticipatory bail to the applicants till conclusion of trial in the matter. 11. The anticipatory bail application is allowed. 12. In the event of arrest of the applicants in the aforesaid case crime, they shall be released on anticipatory bail on their furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned with the following conditions :- (i) The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any 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 to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. (ii) The applicants shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The applicants shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which they are accused, or suspected, of the commission of which they are suspected. (iv) The applicants shall not leave India without prior permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by them before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned. 13. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the Investigating Officer shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail of the applicants in accordance with law. 14. It is made clear that the submissions and observations made in this order are only for deciding the bail application. Trial Court while deciding the trial will not be influenced with the same. Order Date :- 15.9.2023 Shivangi Digitally signed by :- SHIVANGI YADAV High Court of Judicature at Allahabad