The Supreme Court in Ude Singh and Ors v. State of Haryana

Applicant :- Durgesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Tomar,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Atul Verma, holding brief of Sri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the victim on 30.03.2023 and the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry leading to her death on 02.09.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The victim was suffering from cyst in her right ovary which is but evident from the ultrasound report annexed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. The applicant had applied for leave to illness of his wife. As his casual leaves were exhausted, he had taken earned leave and was granted the same on 23.08.2023.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are not fulfilled as there was no particular demand of dowry made in the FIR. It has plainly been stated that the applicant and other family members did not get enough dowry. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

7. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail on the ground that the FIR is prompt that was instituted within six hours and the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled as the deceased had expired within six months of her marriage and young lady has been put to death. It is true that the cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging but applicant had drawn her to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that none of the family members of the applicant were present at the time of inquest proceedings, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. 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."

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that no particular demand of dowry is mentioned in the FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Durgesh Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. 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 :- 19.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Applicant :- Durgesh Singh Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Swati Agrawal Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party :- Akash Tomar,G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Ms. Swati Agrawal Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Atul Verma, holding brief of Sri Akash Tomar, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Ashutosh Srivastava, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 378 of 2023, under Sections 498A, 323, 304B IPC and Sections 3/4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Dhampur, District Bijnor, during the pendency of trial.

4. As per prosecution story, the marriage of the applicant was solemnized with the victim on 30.03.2023 and the applicant and other family members are stated to have subjected the deceased to cruelty for demand of dowry leading to her death on 02.09.2023.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. It is a clear cut case of false implication. The victim was suffering from cyst in her right ovary which is but evident from the ultrasound report annexed as Annexure-11 to the affidavit filed with the bail application. The applicant had applied for leave to illness of his wife. As his casual leaves were exhausted, he had taken earned leave and was granted the same on 23.08.2023.

6. Learned counsel has further stated that ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are not fulfilled as there was no particular demand of dowry made in the FIR. It has plainly been stated that the applicant and other family members did not get enough dowry. The cause of death was asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. As such, the applicant is entitled for bail.

7. Learned counsel for the informant has opposed the bail on the ground that the FIR is prompt that was instituted within six hours and the ingredients of Section 304-B IPC are fulfilled as the deceased had expired within six months of her marriage and young lady has been put to death. It is true that the cause of death was found to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging but applicant had drawn her to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the informant has further stated that none of the family members of the applicant were present at the time of inquest proceedings, as such the applicant is not entitled for bail.

8. 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."

9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration that no particular demand of dowry is mentioned in the FIR, I find it a fit case to release the applicant on bail. The bail application is allowed.

10. Let the applicant- Durgesh Singh, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his 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.

11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.

12. 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 :- 19.5.2025 Sumit S (Justice Krishan Pahal) SUMIT SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad