Single judge allowed bail to applicant Pramod Kumari in a suicide case (Sections 306, 120B IPC). Court rejected prosecution argument regarding falls within Section 107 IPC and imposed stringent conditions including personal bond with sureties.
Applicant Pramod Kumari released on bail on personal bond and two sureties subject to specific conditions.
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. - 67
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 49506 of 2020
Applicant :- Pramod Kumari Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rafeek Ahmad Khan,Akhilesh Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Dinesh Kumar Singh,Gaytri Rajput
Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi,J.
Heard Sri Akhilesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant through virtual mode, learned AGA and perused the record.
By means of this application, the applicant who is involved in case crime no. 117/2019, under Sections 306, 120B IPC, P.S. Chikasi, DistrictHamirpur, is seeking enlargement on bail during the trial.
Learned counsel for the applicant in support of his application for bail submits that the applicant is innocent. She has been falsely implicated. It is further submitted that the FIR was got registered by one Smt. Ram Kumari on 21.12.2018 for the incident said to have taken place on 18.12.2019 against the applicant and three others with the allegation that initially the applicant has lodged an FIR of sexual assault upon her by Santosh Kumar, (husband of the informant) and out of sheer self pity, he has committed suicide.
The learned counsel for the applicant has further submits that on 17.12.2019, the applicant had given a written information to the police that on 16.12.2019 the deceased Santosh Kumar had sexually assaulted upon her. Taking the said application, the police has made an independent investigation before lodging the formal FIR and after recording the statements of Sandeep Kumar, Mani Lal and Sidh Gopal etc. the police found that the allegations made in the application by the applicant are false and wrong. There was no formal FIR was got registered and on the very next date the deceased has committed suicide. Sri Akhilesh Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant submits that, after the preliminary investigation, the police has come to the conclusion that there was no such type of incident ever took place, alleged by the informant/applicant regarding rape. There was no justifiable reason for the deceased to take this extreme step. Moreover, no one is prevented and precluded to take the legal recourse. After the preliminary investigation, allegation of rape is found false, there was no reason for any self pity and commission of suicide. For bringing any action for abated to the suicide, three ingredients as mentioned in Section 107 of IPC are necessary. It has lastly been
submitted that the applicant is in jail since 24.12.2019 having no criminal antecedents except the present one.
Learned AGA opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts and the legal submissions as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant.
The submissions made by learned counsel for the applicant, prima facie, quite appealing and convincing for the purpose of bail only.
After hearing the counsel for the contesting party, the Court is afraid to accept that any of the action on the part of the applicant would fall within the realm of either of the third clauses of Section 107 of IPC. Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a fit case for bail.
Let the applicant Pramod Kumari , be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-
(i) THE APPLICANT SHALL FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE EFFECT THAT HE/SHE SHALL NOT SEEK ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE FIXED FOR EVIDENCE WHEN THE WITNESSES ARE PRESENT IN COURT. IN CASE OF DEFAULT OF THIS CONDITION, IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT IT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(ii) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON EACH DATE FIXED, EITHER PERSONALLY OR THROUGH HIS/HER COUNSEL. IN CASE OF HIS/HER ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY PROCEED AGAINST HIM/HER UNDER SECTION 229-A IPC.
(iii) IN CASE, THE APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN ORDER TO SECURE HIS/HER PRESENCE PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82 CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF APPLICANT FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION, THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST HIM/HER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.
(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL REMAIN PRESENT, IN PERSON, BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE AND (3)
RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 313 CR.P.C. IF IN THE OPINION OF THE TRIAL COURT ABSENCE OF THE APPLICANT IS DELIBERATE OR WITHOUT SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN IT SHALL BE OPEN FOR THE TRIAL COURT TO TREAT SUCH DEFAULT AS ABUSE OF LIBERTY OF BAIL AND PROCEED AGAINST THE HIM/HER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.
(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY MAKE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.
In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
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.
Since the bail application has been decided under extra-ordinary circumstances, thus in the interest of justice following additional conditions are being imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be released on bail forthwith. Needless to mention that these additional conditions are imposed to cope with emergent condition-:
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his/her bail so granted by this court and the trial court is at liberty to cancel the bail, after recording the reasons for doing so, in the given case of any of the condition mentioned above.
Order Date :- 5.7.2021 Nisha
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in a suicide case involving Sections 306 and 120B IPC.
Whether sufficient cause was made out in the prima facie material to grant bail despite the seriousness of the offence.
Pramod Kumari
State of U.P.
Rahul Chaturvedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
