In this bail application, the High Court allowed the request of the father of a deceased accused in an abetment of suicide case. The court found no positive evidence of instigation and granted bail subject to standard conditions.
The applicant Nemi Chandra released on bail by furnishing a personal bond and two sureties, subject to 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.
Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:107621
Court No. - 75
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 18272 of 2023
Applicant :- Nemi Chandra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Srivastava,Gaurav Srivastav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Sanjay Kumar Singh,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate representing the State .
By means of this application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., applicant, who is involved in Case Crime No. 681 of 2018, under Section 306 IPC, police station Shahganj, district Agra, seeks enlargement on bail during the pendency of trial.
As per prosecution case, in brief, informant Vijay Singh, who is father-in-law of Sushil (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') lodged a first information report on 26.9.2018 in respect of the incident which took place on 29.8.2018 at about 1.00 AM against the present applicant Nemi Chandra, Anita, Manoj, Sunita and Pushpa with the allegations inter alia that they were mounting pressure upon the deceased to vacate the house in which he was living along with his family members and on account of harassment and torture of the accused persons, he committed suicide.
It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is father of the deceased and deceased Sushil was the only son of the applicant, who was living in the house of the applicant. It is further contended that since the deceased was habitual drunkard and his conduct was not good, therefore, applicant himself left his house and started living in a separate house on rent. The wife of the deceased is an educated lady and is in private job and was taking care of the deceased as well as her children. The deceased on account of his bad
habit was not in a position to earn livelihood for his family. It is next submitted that though the deceased in his suicide note has made allegation against the applicant, but Smt. Geeta, wife of the deceased in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. has denied the allegation levelled in the suicide note. Referring to the suicide note, it is submitted that there is no evidence of abtement or instigation on the part of the applicant to commit suicide by the deceased. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that there is no chance of the applicant fleeing away from the judicial process or tampering with the prosecution evidence. The applicant is languishing in jail since 28. 11.2022 and in case, he is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail and cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, learned A.G.A. for the State opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant, but could not dispute the statement of Smt. Geeta, wife of the deceased wherein she has denied the allegations made in the suicide note.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the matter in its entirety, I find that it is admitted fact that though the applicant is father of the deceased, but he was living separately from the deceased in another house on rent. There is no positive evidence of abetment or instigation on the part of the applicant which is essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 IPC.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused and submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that the applicant has made out a case for bail. Hence, the bail application is hereby allowed.
Let the applicant Nemi Chandra, 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:
(i) That the applicant shall cooperate in the expeditious disposal of the trial and shall regularly attend the court unless inevitable.
(ii) That the applicant 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 or to any police ofÏcer or tamper with the evidence.
(iii) That after his release, the applicant shall not involve in any criminal activity.
(iv) The identity, status and residential proof of sureties will be verified by court concerned before the release of the applicant.
In case of breach of any of the conditions mentioned above, court concerned will be at liberty to cancel the bail of the applicant.
Order Date :- 17.5.2023
Ishrat
Digitally signed by :- SAURABH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to bail in a case of abetment of suicide where there is no positive evidence of instigation.
Whether the factual finding that the deceased hated his father due to bad habits negates the charge of abetment.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Nemi Chandra
State of U.P.
Shailendra Kumar Singh
Ishrat
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
