The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors v. State of Haryana
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:134612 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 27380 of 2025 Applicant :- Sushila Yadav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Dewarshi Kumar Rai,Dheeraj Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Sri Dewarshi Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri V.K.S. Parmar, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 137 of 2024, under Sections 306 IPC, Police Station Baberu, District Banda, during the pendency of trial. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. 5. Learned counsel has further stated that the FIR is delayed as it was instituted after moving an application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C./175(3) BNSS on 02.07.2024. The application is delayed by more than one month and the FIR was instituted after a delay of about one and half months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has next stated that initially father of the deceased person had given an application at the police station on 24.05.2024 itself indicating that due to family discord, deceased has committed suicide by hanging himself to a tree in the field, as such it is a clear cut case of an afterthought and legal consultation. The applicant being a lady is entitled for bail. 7. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.10.2024 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301 observed:- “16. In cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involving multifaceted and complex attributes of human behavior and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. 16.1. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another; the consideration would be if the accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions abovereferred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. But, on the other hand, if the accused by his acts and by his continuous course of conduct creates a situation which leads the deceased perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the accused and the deceased.” 10. The well-known principle of "Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as a rule and imprisonment as an exception. 11. A person's right to life and liberty, guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, cannot be taken away simply because the person is accused of committing an offence until the guilt is established beyond a reasonable doubt. Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states that no one's life or personal liberty may be taken away unless the procedure established by law is followed, and the procedure must be just and reasonable. The said principle has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690. 12. Reiterating the aforesaid view, the Supreme Court in the case of Manish Sisodia Vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595, has again emphasized that the very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is not to be forgotten. It is high time that the Courts should recognize the principle that "bail is a rule and jail is an exception". 13. The Supreme Court in Jalaluddin Khan Vs. Union of India, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 574, held that 'bail is the rule, jail is the exception' even in special statute like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. 14. Learned State Law Officer could not bring forth any exceptional circumstances which would warrant denial of bail to the applicant. 15. It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is to secure the attendance of the accused at the trial. No material particulars or circumstances suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like have been shown by learned State Law Officer. 16. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the delay in institution of FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed. 17. Let the applicant- Sushila Yadav, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant shall not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant shall appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 18. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 19. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date :- 8.8.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad