The court rejected an application for anticipatory bail citing the serious nature of the accusation under Section 306 IPC and the applicant’s alleged role in the deceased’s suicide over unpaid money.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 42
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7624 of 2021
Applicant :- Shoyab @ Sher Mistri @ Suheb Khan Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishnakant Gupta Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Krishna Kant Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State of U.P., and perused the record.
This Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.751 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Modi Nagar, District Ghaziabad, during the pendency of the investigation.
From perusal of material brought on record it transpires that the deceased Kamaal, husband of the informant, died because of poison. Further, para 10 of the affidavit to the application indicates that the deceased was working in the workshop of the applicant. The allegation in the First Information Report is that the applicant had not given the deceased his money of Rs.1,25,000/- and thus he was forced to commit suicide.
Sri Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant contended that there is no dying declaration and Section 306 IPC was added subsequently by the police. He further submitted that there was no written contract between the deceased and the applicant as far as working in the workshop is concerned. Lastly, it is submitted that applicant has apprehension of imminent arrest and in case, applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the investigation.
On the other hand, refuting the argument advanced by counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. submitted that submission in para 10 of the affidavit is sufficient to the effect that the deceased was working in the workshop of the applicant. further it is a matter of investigation and no occasion arise for granting anticipatory bail to the applicant.
In the light of above, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties as mentioned above, taking into consideration the role assigned to the applicant as per prosecution case as well as gravity and nature of accusation, this Court is of the view that no case for exercising its discretionary power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is made out in favour of applicant.
Accordingly, this application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is rejected.
Order Date :- 3.6.2021 Kushal
3 issues framed by the court
Whether anticipatory bail is warranted given the applicant’s role in the prosecution case under Section 306 IPC regarding a death by poison.
Whether the apprehension of arrest justifies granting relief when the facts indicate a serious nature of accusation.
Whether existing agreements or financial disputes substantiate the suicide allegation sufficiently to deny bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shoyab @ Sher Mistri @ Suheb Khan
State of U.P.
Rohit Ranjan Agarwal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
