High Court
Case Details
Court No. - 67 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 45969 of 2022 Applicant :- Surya Prakash Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Abhilasha Singh,Ashutosh Yadav,Shyam Lal Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J. 1. Counter affidavit filed by learned AGA, which is taken on record. 2. Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner does not proposed to file any rejoinder affidavit and wants to address the Court on merits. 3. Heard Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State at length and perused the record. 4. The instant bail application is being filed invoking the power under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. by the applicant. The present FIR was registered on the date of incident i.e. 30.06.2022 at 14.20 hours under Section 306 IPC, P.S.Nawabganj, District Bareilly for the incident said to have been taken
Legal Reasoning
place on same day. As per the allegation made in the FIR that the daughter
Legal Reasoning
of the informant, Ms.Shashi Gangwar (22 years) was proposed to marry with one Pramod Kumar on 26.06.2022. A day prior to the incident i.e. 29.06.2022 while sobbing, she told her parent that one of her distinct relative Surya Prakash (applicant) son of Sobaran Lal, during her younger days trapped her in an affair and even after settlement of marriage he used to keep this relationship with her on telephone and sometime blackmail her to expose her. She was horrified on account that, the applicant was kept certain objectionable photographs of the victim and threatened her that he would reveal and make it viral. Not only this the other, the applicant has managed to have the telephone number of her husband. On 29.06.2022 the accused applicant has called 70 times to her would be husband. Thereafter out of sheer guilt, she has taken the ultimate step by committing suicide on 30.06.2022. 5. After lodging of the FIR, the dead body was carried to the autopsy report, which was conducted on the same day on 30.06.2022 at 6.40 p.m.. From the post mortem report, it is clear that there is ligature mark of 27 cm front of the neck going backward interrupted with gap. The ligature mark is obliquely placed and as per the opinion of the doctor, she died on account of asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. It has argued by learned counsel for the applicant that referring to the FIR, that the informant has branded the accused applicant as sole author by whose mental atrocities, the victim girl have self immolated. 6. From the FIR, it is carved out that, she during her maiden days might have developed certain amount of tender relationship with accused applicant on which accused sought the mobile number of her affianced, knowing well that there is an engagement between victim-girl and Pramod Kumar. This attempt was with the sole motive to pass on all these photographs to him.. 7. All these factors has cumulatively adversely impact the psyche of the deceased, which has resulted into this extreme steps by hanging herself. 8. Sri Ashutosh Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant has tried to give a different colour to the entire picture in paragraph 13 of the bail application that the deceased was not happy soul after settlement of marriage with one Pramod. It is contended by the counsel that Pramod Kumar was already married man with one Mamta about 3 years back but the relationship between Pramod Kumar and Mamta got strained and number of litigation were initiated by Mamta against Pramod. When Shashi Gangwar (hence deceased) came to know that she was compelled to marry with Pramod Kumar then she has committed suicide. It is further alleged by the counsel that so called suicide note allegedly written by the deceased in her hand writing is a manufacture one and no report of any hand writing expert was received by the Investigating Officer and therefore, creating the present criminal case only on the basis of suicide note would be detrimental to the interest of the applicant. 9. It is further alleged that there is no evidence on record that accused applicant was instrumental in instigating the deceased to commit suicide or there is no live link between the so-called abetment and commission of the offence, by the deceased nor the applicant has even intentionally abetted or instigated the deceased to take this extreme steps. The accused applicant is in jail since 02.07.2022 and therefore, it is alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant that keeping in view the the speed of the trial, he shall be released on bail. 10. The Court has occasioned to peruse the suciden note and other hand written documents recovered from the place of the incident. All the witnesses who have in their respective statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. more particularly, the statement of Pramod Kumar, which is self revealing in which, he stated that he got engaged with Shashi Gangwar (deceased). On 28.06.2022, he received a call from the present applicant and thereafter the accused-applicant has started continuously talking with him and started extending threats to the Pramod Kumar not to marry with the deceased. In addition to this the accused-applicant has disclosed his relationship with the deceased. All these efforts were made by him just to stake his claim over the deceased, asking the Pramod Kumar, to decline from the marriage. Word 'Abetment' and its punishment is provided under Section 306 & 107 IPC respectively. "306. Abetment of suicide.—If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." 11. Learned In-charge Sessions Judge, Bareilly while considering the bail application no. 2831(2201) of 2022 (Surya Prakash Vs. State of U.P.) in case crime no. 250 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Nawabganj, District Bareilly has rejected the bail application on 06.08.2022. 12. Learned counsel for the applicant has strenuously argued that the present case do not fall within the four corners of Section 107 IPC, which defines the abetment, which reads as under:- "107. Abetment of a thing.—A person abets the doing of a thing, who— (First) — Instigates any person to do that thing; or (Secondly) —Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or (Thirdly) — Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.” 13. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that none of the ingredients mentioned in the FIR prima faice fall within the four corners of the aforesaid sections and thus accused-applicant be enlarged on bail. 14. Per contra, learned AGA has vehementally opposed the bail application by making the mention that on 29.06.2022 and 30.06.2022 are two crucial dates whereby the applicant is constantly chosen the victim and blackmailed her not to marry with Pramod Kumar. In furtherance of this mal intention he has extended threats to her that he is going to reveal those photographs and make them viral. No doubt, those photographs were given by the deceased to the accused- applicant with tacit confidence and understanding that he would not make it viral or circulate those photographs, but the applicant has literally back stabbed her at the verge, when she is going to marry with Pramod Kumar. In our society, self respect and self esteem of a girl is extremely precious but also too delicate and fragile. These threats of accused applicant were extended just to sabotage the future relationship, else there was no occasion or reason for him to talk to Pramod Kumar on 29.06.2022 for 70 times and try to prevail upon him to wriggle out from his engagement. 15. Learned AGA has tried to give a different angle to the situation by advancing the argument that, in our society one's honour, dignity and honour is of paramount importance, which he/she jealously ground and protect. This is a non-negotiable aspect of this issue. No individual is going to have any compromise at any cost. Even, if one individual has got wildest of apprehension that by any act or omission on the part of other, his/her self esteem or self respect is going to be compromised, he/she would reach to point of no return and take any wild or fooling step. In the instant case, where the deceased-victim was finacee of Pramod Kumar, with who she got engaged on 26.06.2022. Now, if the accused applicant wants to sabotage her, this engagement by making those pictures and photographs viral to her would be husband, this is more than sufficient reason that she has taken this extreme step. In this episode, the sequence of events and their proximity of time is extremely relevant and important. Her date of engagement, contact by accused applicant with victim and his insistence to decline from her marriage; again contacting with her would be husband on 30.06.2022 and taking to him for 70 times on phone, all these indicates put in a seratium, clearly indicates the accused applicant is an 'Abetor' of the deceased. This action on the part of accused-applicant completely blasted the parallel story created by the counsel for the applicant in its para 13 of the affidavit. 17. In this regard, learned AGA has pointed out the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT Delhi) in paragraph 14 of the said judgment, which is quoted herein below. "14. As per clause firstly in the said Section, a person can be said to have abetted in doing of a thing, who "instigates" any person to do that thing. The word "instigate" is not defined in the IPC. The meaning of the said word was considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. Speaking for the three-Judge Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship then was) said that instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of "instigation", though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes "instigation" must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be (2001) 9 SCC 618 capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct, created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an "instigation" may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow, cannot be said to be instigation." 17. Assessing the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and taking the help from the ratio laid down in Chitren Kumar (supra) judgement, I am not inclined to grant the accused applicant on bail, accordingly, the bail application under Section 439(1) Cr.P.C. he hereby refused. Accordingly, the bail application stands REJECTED. 18. However, it is directed that the learned trial judge would gear up the matter and make all necessary endeavour to conclude the trial of the case within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order, unaffected by any of the observations made in this bail rejection order. Order Date :- 6.12.2022 Abhishek Sri. Digitally signed by :- ABHISHEK RANJAN SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad