In a bail application under Section 306 IPC regarding the suicide of the applicant's son-in-law, High Court of Judicature at Allahabad allowed bail. The Court held that prima facie ingredients of abetment were not satisfied and the nature of offence required trial evidence, thus necessitating release on bail.
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:168827
Court No. - 65
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 34312 of 2023
Applicant :- Rajveer @ Raju Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Jayant Prakash Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Rajeev Misra,J.
Heard Mr. Jayant Prakash Singh, the learned counsel for applicant and the learned A.G.A. for State.
This application for bail has been filed by applicant Rajveer @ Raju seeking his enlargement on bail in Case Crime No.165 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, police station Hazratnagar Garhi, district Sambhal, during the pendency of trial.
Perused the record.
Record shows that marriage of the daughter of applicant, namely, Preeti, was solemnized with Arjun (brother of first informant) on 05.06.2022. However, just after expiry of a period of two months from the date of marriage, Arjun, son-inlaw of the applicant, committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance on 07.08.2022 as a result of which he died.
In respect of the said incident, a delayed first information report dated 17.08.2022 came to be lodged by the first informant, namely, Nirdosh Kumar (brother of the deceased) and was registered as Case Crime No.0165 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, police station Hazratnagar Garhi, district Sambhal. In the aforesaid first information report four persons, namely, Preeti; Wati; Rajveer Singh @ Raju (applicant herein) and Tinku have been nominated as named accused. It is the case of the applicant that after the occurrence had occurred the victim was rushed to the hospital by Manoj Kumar, brother of the deceased.
It is apposite to mention here that after the occurrence had taken place, an information was given at the concerned police station Hazratnagar Garhi by constable clerk 870 Aman Kumar. On the basis of same, the inquest (Panchayatnama) of the deceased was conducted. Thereafter, the post-mortem of body of the deceased was conducted. In the opinion of the autopsy surgeon, who conducted the autopsy of the deceased, the cause of death of the deceased could not be ascertained. As such, the viscera was preserved. However,
the autopsy surgeon did not find any external injury on the body of the deceased. Subsequently, the viscera report was submitted on 27.04.2023. As per the viscera report, a foreign chemical compound, namely, Carbonate Insecticide was found in the parts of the body of deceased sent for chemical examination. Ultimately, Investigating OfÏcer on the basis of material collected by him during course of investigation including the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC came to the conclusion that prima facie the complicity of two of the named accused i.e. Rajveer @ Raju (applicant herein) and Preeti is established in the crime in question. He, accordingly, submitted the charge-sheet dated 11.06.2023 against aforesaid named accused.
Learned counsel for the applicant contends that though applicant is a named as well as charge-sheeted accused yet he is liable to the enlarged on bail. The applicant is innocent. Learned counsel for applicant further contends that present case is a case under Section 306 IPC. The offence under Section 306 IPC is to be examined on a conjoint reading of Section 107 and 306 IPC. Referring to the statements of the witnesses examined under Section 161 CrPC, he submits that as per the statements of the witnesses no abetment, instigation or conspiracy can be inferred against the applicant. There is nothing on record to suggest that the deceased committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant. More over, an offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC is subject to trial evidence. To buttress his submissions, he has referred the following judgements :- Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P. 2018 ADJ Online 0163 and that of the Supreme Court in Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (2021) 13 SCC 806; Mirza Iqbal Vs. State of U.P. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251 and Sabitri Samantaray Vs. State of Odisha 2022 SCC OnLine SC 673; and Kashibai & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.8584/2022) . On the basis of above, it is thus urged that applicant is liable to be enlarged on bail. Even otherwise, applicant is a man of clean antecedents having no criminal history to his credit except the present one. The applicant is in custody since 07.06.2023. As such he has undergone more than two and half months of incarceration. In case the applicant is enlarged on bail, he shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
Per contra, the learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail. He submits that since applicant is a named/charge-sheeted accused therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court. However, he could not dislodge the factual and legal submissions urged by the learned counsel for applicant with reference to the record at this stage.
Having heard the learned counsel for applicant, the learned A.G.A. for State, upon perusal of material brought on record, nature and gravity of offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, accusation made and coupled with the fact that prima facie none of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC are satisfied against applicant up to this stage, there is nothing on record to indicate abetment, instigation or conspiracy against applicant or the deceased had committed suicide on account of an immediate act of applicant, more over, an offence under Section 306 IPC read with Section 107 IPC is subject to trial evidence, the clean antecedents of the applicant, the period of incarceration undergone, the police report under Section 173 (2) CrPC i.e. charge-sheet has already been submitted against the applicant, therefore the entire evidence sought to be relied upon by prosecution against applicant stands crystalized, but inspite of above the learned A.G.A. could not point out any such circumstance from the record necessitating the custodial arrest of the applicant during the pendency of trial, the judgement of the Supreme Court in Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 Livelaw SC 373 (Paragraph 5) , but without making any comment on the merits of the case, the applicant has made out a case for bail.
Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .
Let the applicant Rajveer @ Raju, involved in aforesaid case crime number, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond with 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 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 counsel. In case of his absence, without sufÏcient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under section 229-A I.P.C.
(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his 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, in accordance with law, under section 174-A I.P.C.
(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 sufÏcient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him 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.
However, it is made clear that any wilful violation of above conditions by the applicant, shall have serious repercussion on his 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 :- 22.8.2023. Rks.
Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
1 issue framed by the court
Whether accused charged with abatement to suicide under Section 306 IPC is liable to be enlarged on bail given lack of evidence of abetment and clean antecedents
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Sarvesh Vs. State of U.P. 2018 ADJ Online 0163
Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Kanchan Sharma Vs. State of U.P. (2021) 13 SCC 806 · Who else cites this
Mirza Iqbal Vs. State of U.P.Referred¶13
Mirza Iqbal Vs. State of U.P. 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1251 · Who else cites this
Sabitri Samantaray Vs. State of OdishaReferred¶13
Sabitri Samantaray Vs. State of Odisha 2022 SCC OnLine SC 673 · Who else cites this
Kashibai & Others Vs. The State of KarnatakaReferred¶13
Kashibai & Others Vs. The State of Karnataka
Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and anotherReferred¶15
Sumit Subhashchandra Gangwal and another Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2023 Livelaw SC 373
6 provisions across 2 enactments
Rajveer @ Raju
State of U.P.
Rajeev Misra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
