Pawan v. State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Of Home U.P. Lko

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned AGA and Ms. Snigdha Singh, who has filed her vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.

2. This is the third application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.253/2023, under Sections 323 & 306 I.P.C., Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

3. The second application No. 7407/2024 was rejected by means of an order dated 17.04.2025 after taking into consideration the statements of 5 prosecution witnesses. Third application was filed thereafter because the Investigating Officer was not appearing to record his statement and the trial was getting delayed. On 27.11.2025, this Court had called for a personal affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow where after the Investigating Officer has appeared before the trial court and has got his statement recorded.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that now all the witnesses have been examined, applicant will not be in a position to influence the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.07.2023 and he has no criminal history. 2 BAIL No. 11722 of 2025

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that after rejection of the second bail application, the applicant has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court where he could not succeed and, therefore, the SLP (Crl) bearing Diary No. 29222/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on

28.07.2025.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment in Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 & 24 has observed as under:-

23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.

24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306. 3 BAIL No. 11722 of 2025

7. The aforesaid observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding an appeal filed against an order passed by the High Court dismissing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals and had upheld the order of the High Court.

8. In these circumstances, the aforesaid observations made in the judgment are not relevant for deciding this bail application of the applicant.

9. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

10. As the prosecution evidence already stands closed, the trial court is directed to decide trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates on short intervals.

11. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to mention that on

27.11.2025 this Court had passed the following order:- "1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that while rejecting the second bail application filed by the applicant on 17.04.2025, this Court had directed the trial court to proceed with the trial with all possible expedition. Since then the trial is being fixed for examination of Investigating Officer but inspite of repetitive opportunities having been granted to him and inspite of issuing non bailable warrant, the Investigating Officer is not appearing for recording his statement.

2. He has submitted that the trial was fixed yesterday i.e. on 26.11.2025 also but the Investigating Officer did not appear to get his statement recorded.

3. The prosecution's failure to cooperate with expeditious disposal of trial inspite of specific direction issued by this Court, cannot be appreciated.

4. In view of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow is directed to file his personal affidavit explaining non examination of the Investigating Officer inspite of the direction issued by 4 BAIL No. 11722 of 2025 this Court in the order dated 17.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7407/2024, within a period of two weeks.

5. List this case in the week commencing 15.12.2025."

12. In compliance of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court, the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow has filed his personal affidavit annexing therewith a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (North), Lucknow wherein it is stated that a summon was issued to the Investigating Officer for recording his evidence, on 05.06.2025, which was served though Police Station Gomti Nagar and the Investigating Officer was made aware about the date fixed. Again a summon was issued by the Court on 26.06.2025 and the Investigating Officer was telephonically informed about the same. On 23.07.2025, the trial court issued a bailable warrant and the Investigating Officer was telephonically informed about the same and he told that he was at New Delhi in connection with his treatment. Thereafter non bailable warrants were issued on 08.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 26.09.2025, 18.10.2025 & 04.11.2025. Although as many as 4 NBWs were served upon the Investigating Officer through Police Station Gomti Nagar, he did not appear before the trial court to record his statement. The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police states that a preliminary inquiry has been instituted against the Inspector Incharge, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow and further proceedings will be taken as per the outcome of the preliminary inquiry report.

13. It is strange that a person against whom non bailable warrants were issued repetitively and were served through police, continued to serve as a police officer and he continued to draw his salary and attend to his duties without he being arrested and produced before the trial court. In this regard, it appears that action needs to be taken against the person who was required to arrest the Investigating Officer who was not appearing before the trail court in spite of repetitive summons, bailable warrants and non bailable warrants. An inquiry needs to be conducted in this regard as well and action needs to be taken against the erring officials.

14. The Police Commissioner of Lucknow is directed to take necessary 5 BAIL No. 11722 of 2025 action in this regard and submit a compliance report before this Court within two months.

15. List this bail application for submission of compliance report by the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow in the week commencing 23.02.2026. December 15, 2025 Pradeep/- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Mayank Sinha, the learned AGA and Ms. Snigdha Singh, who has filed her vakalatnama on behalf of the complainant, which is taken on record.

2. This is the third application seeking release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No.253/2023, under Sections 323 & 306 I.P.C., Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, District Lucknow.

3. The second application No. 7407/2024 was rejected by means of an order dated 17.04.2025 after taking into consideration the statements of 5 prosecution witnesses. Third application was filed thereafter because the Investigating Officer was not appearing to record his statement and the trial was getting delayed. On 27.11.2025, this Court had called for a personal affidavit of the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow where after the Investigating Officer has appeared before the trial court and has got his statement recorded.

4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that now all the witnesses have been examined, applicant will not be in a position to influence the witnesses in case of his release on bail. The applicant is languishing in jail since 19.07.2023 and he has no criminal history. 2 BAIL No. 11722 of 2025

5. The learned counsel for the complainant has stated that after rejection of the second bail application, the applicant has approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court where he could not succeed and, therefore, the SLP (Crl) bearing Diary No. 29222/2025 was dismissed as withdrawn on

28.07.2025.

6. The learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance upon a judgment in Abhinav Mohan Delkar v. State of Maharashtra: 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1725, in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 23 & 24 has observed as under:-

23. The victim may have felt that there was no alternative or option, but to take his life, because of what another person did or said; which cannot lead to a finding of mens rea and resultant abetment on that other person. What constitutes mens rea is the intention and purpose of the alleged perpetrator as discernible from the conscious acts or words and the attendant circumstances, which in all probability could lead to such an end. The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test. Did the thought of goading the victim to suicide occur in the mind of the accused or whether it can be inferred from the facts and circumstances arising in the case, as the true test of mens rea would depend on the facts of each case. The social status, the community setting, the relationship between the parties and other myriad factors would distinguish one case from another. However harsh or severe the harassment, unless there is a conscious deliberate intention, mens rea, to drive another person to suicidal death, there cannot be a finding of abetment under Section 306.

24. We have already seen that even a rebuke to “go, kill yourself”; often a rustic expression against distasteful conduct, cannot by itself be found to have the ingredients to charge an offence of abetment to suicide. There is no uniformity in how different individuals respond and react under pressure. Many stand up, some fight back, a few runaway and certain people crumble and at times take the extreme step of suicide. To put the blame on the pressure imposed and the person responsible for it, at all times, without something more to clearly discern an intention, would not be the proper application of the penal provisions under Section 306. 3 BAIL No. 11722 of 2025

7. The aforesaid observations were made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court while deciding an appeal filed against an order passed by the High Court dismissing an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the proceedings. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had dismissed the appeals and had upheld the order of the High Court.

8. In these circumstances, the aforesaid observations made in the judgment are not relevant for deciding this bail application of the applicant.

9. Accordingly, this bail application is rejected.

10. As the prosecution evidence already stands closed, the trial court is directed to decide trial expeditiously without granting any unnecessary adjournment to any of the parties and by fixing dates on short intervals.

11. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to mention that on

27.11.2025 this Court had passed the following order:- "1. Heard Sri Sudhanshu Shekhar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the applicant, who has submitted that while rejecting the second bail application filed by the applicant on 17.04.2025, this Court had directed the trial court to proceed with the trial with all possible expedition. Since then the trial is being fixed for examination of Investigating Officer but inspite of repetitive opportunities having been granted to him and inspite of issuing non bailable warrant, the Investigating Officer is not appearing for recording his statement.

2. He has submitted that the trial was fixed yesterday i.e. on 26.11.2025 also but the Investigating Officer did not appear to get his statement recorded.

3. The prosecution's failure to cooperate with expeditious disposal of trial inspite of specific direction issued by this Court, cannot be appreciated.

4. In view of the aforesaid peculiar circumstances, the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow is directed to file his personal affidavit explaining non examination of the Investigating Officer inspite of the direction issued by 4 BAIL No. 11722 of 2025 this Court in the order dated 17.04.2024 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 7407/2024, within a period of two weeks.

5. List this case in the week commencing 15.12.2025."

12. In compliance of the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by this Court, the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow has filed his personal affidavit annexing therewith a report submitted by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (North), Lucknow wherein it is stated that a summon was issued to the Investigating Officer for recording his evidence, on 05.06.2025, which was served though Police Station Gomti Nagar and the Investigating Officer was made aware about the date fixed. Again a summon was issued by the Court on 26.06.2025 and the Investigating Officer was telephonically informed about the same. On 23.07.2025, the trial court issued a bailable warrant and the Investigating Officer was telephonically informed about the same and he told that he was at New Delhi in connection with his treatment. Thereafter non bailable warrants were issued on 08.08.2025, 29.08.2025, 26.09.2025, 18.10.2025 & 04.11.2025. Although as many as 4 NBWs were served upon the Investigating Officer through Police Station Gomti Nagar, he did not appear before the trial court to record his statement. The report of the Deputy Commissioner of Police states that a preliminary inquiry has been instituted against the Inspector Incharge, Police Station Bakshi Ka Talab, Lucknow and further proceedings will be taken as per the outcome of the preliminary inquiry report.

13. It is strange that a person against whom non bailable warrants were issued repetitively and were served through police, continued to serve as a police officer and he continued to draw his salary and attend to his duties without he being arrested and produced before the trial court. In this regard, it appears that action needs to be taken against the person who was required to arrest the Investigating Officer who was not appearing before the trail court in spite of repetitive summons, bailable warrants and non bailable warrants. An inquiry needs to be conducted in this regard as well and action needs to be taken against the erring officials.

14. The Police Commissioner of Lucknow is directed to take necessary 5 BAIL No. 11722 of 2025 action in this regard and submit a compliance report before this Court within two months.

15. List this bail application for submission of compliance report by the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow in the week commencing 23.02.2026. December 15, 2025 Pradeep/- (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench