State of U.P v. Party

Heard Sri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yagvalkya Pandey, learned AGA for the State-Respondent, Sri Rahul Gaud, holding brief of Sri Lokesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS at the instance of the accused-applicant Nadeem @ Dr. Nadeem Son of Mohabbat Ali has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2025, under Sections 108, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Thana Bhwan, District Shamli, during the pendency of the trial before the court blow. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Shamli at Kairana, vide order dated 06.08.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2025 Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. It is argued that the FIR giving rise to the Case Crime Number in question was lodged nominating the applicant and 9 others with the allegation that the deceased (Khusboo) daughter of the informant was working in the Life Care Clinic of the applicant. The applicant become close the victim and one day made an obscene video while she was bathing and thereafter started blackmailing her for sexual favours. It is alleged that the applicant along with his friends (the accused/nominated persons) 2 BAIL No. 28799 of 2025 committed rape on the victim by blackmailing her. The victim lodged an FIR regarding the said incident registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli. The victim was under immense mental stress/pressure due to the threats being advanced by the accused persons and on 29.04.2025 committed suicide at her residence by hanging herself. A suicide note is also alleged to have been found which was handed over to the Circle Officer. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suicide note was available on the Whatsapp status from 03.02.2025 i.e. prior to the incident that the victim in her statement under Section 180 of BNS in Case Crime No. 23 of 2025 under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC had refused for her medical examination and as such as adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the victim. It has been argued that the alleged sexual assault with the applicant has been with her consent. It is also argued that the applicant has been exonerated on the charges of rape under Section 376-D and has been charged only under Sections 504, 506 IPC in Case Crime No. 23 of 2025 by the Investigating Officer on two occasions but later on a supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC. The bail application of the applicant in that case is pending consideration before this Court. It has been argued that the applicant has no role to play in the suicide of the victim/deceased and has also not objected the same. It has been submitted that co-accused Shakeel has been granted Anticipatory Bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court while the arrest of the co-accused Mujammil has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court till submissions of Police Report vide order dated 30.07.2025. The co-accused Farman has also been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated

27.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23906 of 2025. Hence, bail has been prayed for. Per contra, learned AGA as also counsel for the informant have argued that the deceased/victim was sexually abused by the applicant and other co- accused persons as a result of which the deceased/victim was compelled to commit suicide. The applicant is guilty of abetting the suicide and as such is not entitled for the bail prayed for and the bail application warrants rejection. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. "Section 108 of BNS:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 3 BAIL No. 28799 of 2025 which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." The Section 108 BNS is required to be read with Section 45 BNS. "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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." A plain reading of Section 108 of BNS with Section 45 of BNS it is more than clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mensrea to abet the commission of suicide. In Prakash and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INCS 1020 the Apex Court while dealing with the equivalent Section under IPC interpreted the offence as under :- "13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.

14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she 4 BAIL No. 28799 of 2025 would have no other option but to commit suicide." In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2001(9) SCC 618] the Apex Court has interpreted the act of instigation and observed as under:- "20. 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 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." In Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2017 (7) SCC 780, the Supreme Court held as under:- "43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life." Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records and taking note of the ratio of the Apex Court in the cases referred to above and further considering all those 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Nadeem @ Dr. Nadeem, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his 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: 5 BAIL No. 28799 of 2025

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

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

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

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 22, 2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) PAWAN KUMAR SINGH PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Heard Sri Anurag Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Yagvalkya Pandey, learned AGA for the State-Respondent, Sri Rahul Gaud, holding brief of Sri Lokesh Kumar, learned counsel for the informant and perused the record. The instant bail application under Section 483 of the BNSS at the instance of the accused-applicant Nadeem @ Dr. Nadeem Son of Mohabbat Ali has been filed seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 191 of 2025, under Sections 108, 351(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Police Station Thana Bhwan, District Shamli, during the pendency of the trial before the court blow. The bail application of the applicant before the court below was rejected by the Sessions Judge, Shamli at Kairana, vide order dated 06.08.2025 and the applicant is languishing in jail since 04.07.2025 Learned counsel for the applicant has vehemently argued that the applicant is entirely innocent and has been falsely implicated in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. It is argued that the FIR giving rise to the Case Crime Number in question was lodged nominating the applicant and 9 others with the allegation that the deceased (Khusboo) daughter of the informant was working in the Life Care Clinic of the applicant. The applicant become close the victim and one day made an obscene video while she was bathing and thereafter started blackmailing her for sexual favours. It is alleged that the applicant along with his friends (the accused/nominated persons) 2 BAIL No. 28799 of 2025 committed rape on the victim by blackmailing her. The victim lodged an FIR regarding the said incident registered as Case Crime No. 23 of 2025, under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Police Station Thana Bhawan, District Shamli. The victim was under immense mental stress/pressure due to the threats being advanced by the accused persons and on 29.04.2025 committed suicide at her residence by hanging herself. A suicide note is also alleged to have been found which was handed over to the Circle Officer. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the suicide note was available on the Whatsapp status from 03.02.2025 i.e. prior to the incident that the victim in her statement under Section 180 of BNS in Case Crime No. 23 of 2025 under Sections 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC had refused for her medical examination and as such as adverse inference is liable to be drawn against the victim. It has been argued that the alleged sexual assault with the applicant has been with her consent. It is also argued that the applicant has been exonerated on the charges of rape under Section 376-D and has been charged only under Sections 504, 506 IPC in Case Crime No. 23 of 2025 by the Investigating Officer on two occasions but later on a supplementary charge sheet has been filed against the applicant under Section 376-D, 323, 504, 506 IPC. The bail application of the applicant in that case is pending consideration before this Court. It has been argued that the applicant has no role to play in the suicide of the victim/deceased and has also not objected the same. It has been submitted that co-accused Shakeel has been granted Anticipatory Bail by Coordinate Bench of this Court while the arrest of the co-accused Mujammil has been stayed by a Division Bench of this Court till submissions of Police Report vide order dated 30.07.2025. The co-accused Farman has also been granted bail by Co-ordinate Bench vide order dated

27.08.2025 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 23906 of 2025. Hence, bail has been prayed for. Per contra, learned AGA as also counsel for the informant have argued that the deceased/victim was sexually abused by the applicant and other co- accused persons as a result of which the deceased/victim was compelled to commit suicide. The applicant is guilty of abetting the suicide and as such is not entitled for the bail prayed for and the bail application warrants rejection. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the records. "Section 108 of BNS:- If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term 3 BAIL No. 28799 of 2025 which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine." The Section 108 BNS is required to be read with Section 45 BNS. "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 facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act." A plain reading of Section 108 of BNS with Section 45 of BNS it is more than clear that there must be (i) direct or indirect instigation; (ii) in close proximity to the commission of suicide; along with (iii) clear mensrea to abet the commission of suicide. In Prakash and Others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Another reported in 2024 INCS 1020 the Apex Court while dealing with the equivalent Section under IPC interpreted the offence as under :- "13. Section 306 of the IPC has two basic ingredients-first, an act of suicide by one person and second, the abetment to the said act by another person(s). In order to sustain a charge under Section 306 of the IPC, it must necessarily be proved that the accused person has contributed to the suicide by the deceased by some direct or indirect act. To prove such contribution or involvement, one of the three conditions outlined in Section 107 of the IPC has to be satisfied.

14. Section 306 read with Section 107 of IPC, has been interpreted, time and again, and its principles are well- established. To attract the offence of abetment to suicide, it is important to establish proof of direct or indirect acts of instigation or incitement of suicide by the accused, which must be in close proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased. Such instigation or incitement should reveal a clear mens rea to abet the commission of suicide and should put the victim in such a position that he/she 4 BAIL No. 28799 of 2025 would have no other option but to commit suicide." In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh [2001(9) SCC 618] the Apex Court has interpreted the act of instigation and observed as under:- "20. 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 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." In Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, 2017 (7) SCC 780, the Supreme Court held as under:- "43. Keeping in view the aforesaid legal position, we are required to address whether there has been abetment in committing suicide. Be it clearly stated that mere allegation of harassment without any positive action in proximity to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused that led a person to commit suicide, a conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. A casual remark that is likely to cause harassment in ordinary course of things will not come within the purview of instigation. A mere reprimand or a word in a fit of anger will not earn the status of abetment. There has to be positive action that creates a situation for the victim to put an end to life." Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records and taking note of the ratio of the Apex Court in the cases referred to above and further considering all those 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. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant, Nadeem @ Dr. Nadeem, involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail, on his 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: 5 BAIL No. 28799 of 2025

1. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

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

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

4. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court, unless his personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned. In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel his bail. September 22, 2025 (Ashutosh Srivastava,J.) PAWAN KUMAR SINGH PAWAN KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad