Allowed

Smt. Pushpa Pandey and Another v. State of U.P.

Allahabad HC10 May 2023BAIL/15461/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court allowed the bail application of two female applicants accused of abetment to suicide under Section 306 IPC, finding prima facie that the recovered suicide note did not indicate instigation by them regarding the recent incident.

What did the court decide?

Release of applicants on personal bond and two sureties each, subject to conditions including not tampering with evidence and appearing before the trial court.

Smt. Pushpa Pandey and Another Vs State of U.P. — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2023)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:101506

¶2

Court No. - 79

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15461 of 2023 Applicant :- Smt. Pushpa Pandey And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Apul Misra Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma

¶4

Hon'ble Mayank Kumar Jain,J.

¶5

Counter affidavit filed by learned counsel for the informant is taken on record.

¶6

The present bail application has been filed on behalf of applicants Smt. Pushpa Pandey and Smt. Arti Dwivedi @ Arti Pandey in Case Crime No. 102 of 2022, under Section 306 of IPC, Police Station Kydganj, District Prayagraj with the prayer to enlarge them on bail.

¶7

As per the version of the first information report, the marriage of nephew of the first informant namely Akash Dwivedi (deceased) was solemnized with the applicant no.2 Ariti Dwivedi @ Arti Pandey on 27.02.2020 according to Hindu rituals. After marriage, Anand Shankar Pandey (father-in-law of deceased), Pushpa Pandey (applicant no.1/mother-in-law of deceased), Sweta Pandey (sister-in-law of deceased), Dhananjay Pandey (husband of Sweta Pandey), W. Pandey (devar of Sweta Pandey), Pappu Mishra and Arti Dwivedi @ Arti Pandey (applicant No. 2/wife of the deceased) started harassing physically and economically to the deceased and on account of the said harassment on 16.06.2022, deceased left his house saying that he was going to meet his son Shubh (aged around 8 months) to his in-laws' house at Allahapur but he committed suicide on the same day at around 6:30 am by jumping into Yamuna river from the Yamuna Bridge.

¶8

It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that applicants are innocent ladies and there is no evidence of instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid against the applicants. It is further submitted that after completion of investigation, charge sheet came to be filed only against the applicants and other named persons were not charge sheeted. It is also contended that so far as the suicide note which is alleged to have been recovered from the passer-by from the place of occurrence is concerned, the sanctity

¶9

of the alleged suicide note has not been proved by any hand writing expert as the original hand writing of the deceased was not available to compare the same. It is further urged that so far as S.M.S. and the application found on the android phone of the deceased are concerned, they are very weak evidence to prove the abetment under Section 306 I.P.C. and the provision of 107 I.P.C. are not attracted against the applicants. The applicants no. 2 had genuine reason to live separately from the deceased since she had already moved an application regarding sexual harassment against elder brother of the deceased. Applicant no. 2 is having a child of less than one year which is also residing with her inside the jail. It is also submitted that there is no evidence of abetment against mother-in-law i.e. applicant no.1. It is further contended that so far as the contents of the suicide note are concerned, no allegation of abetment, conspiracy or intentional aid were levelled against the applicants by the deceased. Likewise, no reason is mentioned in the S.M.S. which allegedly obtained from the android phone of the deceased to compel him to commit suicide. It is further submitted that applicants are languishing in jail since 23.02.2023 having no criminal history and that in case they are released on bail, they will not misuse the liberty of bail and will cooperate in trial.

¶10

Per contra, learned A.G.A. assisted by learned counsel for the informant vehemently opposed the bail application referring the complaint filed by the deceased against Anand Shankar and W. Shankar with regard to the transaction of Rs. 2 lakh wherein it has been averted that father-in-law of the deceased took Rs. 2 lakh from the deceased and on 20.07.2021 when he asked to refund his money, poison in "laddu" was given to him. The statement of deceased/complainant under Section 200 Cr.P.C. was also recorded. Prior to the aforesaid incident, on 15.06.2022, an application to S.S.P. Prayagraj was given by the deceased against the applicants and other person apprehending his death. Statement of passerby namely Prince Pandey was recorded during investigation in which he stated that he found an android phone and suicide letter from the place of occurrence. The copy of the suicide notes are annexed as Annexure-CA-7 to the counter affidavit.

¶11

In rebuttal learned counsel for the applicants placed reliance on Kashibai & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka, 2023 Live Law (SC) 149 and argued that in order to convict a person for the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. the basic constituents of the offence namely whether the death was suicidal, whether there was an abetment on the part of the accused as contemplated under Section

¶12

107 I.P.C. have to be established. Learned counsel for the applicants further contended that so far as two documents allegedly written by the deceased mentioning the reason of his suicide are concerned, they are not the part of the case diary. Moreover, the complaint filed by the deceased relates to the incident of year 2021, therefore, it cannot be presumed that deceased committed suicide on the instigation of the applicants.

¶13

Heard Sri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Rajesh Kumar Roy Sharma, learned counsel for the informant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

¶14

Prima facie the alleged suicide note which was recovered from the passerby during investigation does not indicate any instigation, abetment and intentional aid on the part of the applicants which compel the deceased to commit suicide. So far as complaint filed by the deceased is concerned, which relates to the year 2021 and outcome of the same has not brought on record to indicate that there was some instigation or intentional aid on the part of the applicants to compel the deceased to commit suicide.

¶15

Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case, submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of evidence and all attending facts and circumstances of the case, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicants have made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

¶16

Let the applicants Smt. Pushpa Pandey and Smt. Arti Dwivedi @ Arti Pandey in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶17

(1). The applicants will not tamper with the prosecution evidence during the trial.

¶18

(2). The applicants will not influence any witness.

¶19

(3). The applicants will appear before the trial Court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

¶20

(4). The applicants shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

¶21

In case of breach of any of the above condition, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move an application before this Court seeking cancellation of the bail.

¶22

Order Date :- 10.5.2023/AKT

¶23

Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Smt. Pushpa Pandey and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Pushpa Pandey and Another v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhimsen @ Bheema Jat Vs State of U.P.

Krishna Pad Vishwas Vs State of U.P.

Vijay Yadav Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pawan Vs State of U.P. and Another

Asif Vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Pratap Baitha Vs State of U.P.