High Court · 2025

Applicant :- Guddi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Gupta,Sriram Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicants, Guddi and Sani Deval, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2025, under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Kolahi, District- Maharajganj.

3. There is allegation in the First Information Report that daughter of the informant being abated/assaulted/tortured by the applicants committed suicide in the house of the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the accused-applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and are languishing in jail since 28.03.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the FIR, only general allegation of abetment has been levelled against the applicants and no specific allegation of assault on the date of committing suicide has been made against them. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 5175 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7957 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024). Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea?the intention to abet the act?is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, wherein it was observed that: "25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

19. To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, defined the word "instigate" as under: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation (2001) 9 SCC 618 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 capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case 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 been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, (2011) 3 SCC 626 (2010) 1 SCC 707 (2007) SCC OnLine Kar 824 requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of their fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the accused-applicants, Guddi and Sani Deval, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicants will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co- operate in the trial.

4. The applicants will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

9. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel their bail. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Guddi And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajat Gupta,Sriram Dhar Dubey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the applicants, Shri Yagyavalk Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

2. This bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicants, Guddi and Sani Deval, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 87 of 2025, under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station - Kolahi, District- Maharajganj.

3. There is allegation in the First Information Report that daughter of the informant being abated/assaulted/tortured by the applicants committed suicide in the house of the applicants.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the accused-applicants are innocent. They have been falsely implicated in this very case crime number and are languishing in jail since 28.03.2025. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that in the FIR, only general allegation of abetment has been levelled against the applicants and no specific allegation of assault on the date of committing suicide has been made against them. In order to buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 5175 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7957 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024). Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted hereunder: "18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea?the intention to abet the act?is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, wherein it was observed that: "25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

19. To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, defined the word "instigate" as under: "20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation (2001) 9 SCC 618 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 capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case 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 been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

24. Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, (2011) 3 SCC 626 (2010) 1 SCC 707 (2007) SCC OnLine Kar 824 requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim."

4. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the applicants have no criminal antecedent and there is no likelihood of their fleeing from course of justice or tampering with evidence in case of release on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

5. Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail.

6. Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

7. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed.

8. Let the accused-applicants, Guddi and Sani Deval, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on their executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each, in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to the following conditions:

1. The applicants will not tamper with the evidence.

2. The applicants will not indulge in any criminal activity.

3. The applicants will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and co- operate in the trial.

4. The applicants will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless their personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

9. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel their bail. Order Date :- 5.8.2025 Anjali ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad