Allowed

Aradhana Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Sept 2024ABAIL/2366/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed anticipatory bail application by observing that necessary ingredients for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC were not made out, noting applicant cooperation in investigation and lack of need for custodial interrogation.

What did the court decide?

Applicants enlarged on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in like amount.

Aradhana Singh and Another vs State of U.P. and Another — Anticipatory Bail | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:144480

¶2

Court No. - 72

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2366 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Aradhana Singh And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vivek Varma,J.

¶6

Heard counsel for the applicants, Sri Anupam Anand, learned Brief Holder for the State and perused the material available on record.

¶7

This application under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur.

¶8

The applicants were granted interim anticipatory bail vide order dated 6.3.2024 passed by the co-ordinate bench of this Court. The order is quoted herein below:

¶9

"1. List revised.

¶10

2. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ajay Singh, learned counsel for the State and perused the records.

¶11

3. Learned counsel for the applicants argued that the applicant no. 2 Arjun Kumar Balmiki is the brother of the deceased Sapna Kumari and the applicant no. 1 Aradhana Singh is the wife of the applicant no. 2. It is argued that the deceased committed suicide and died as is suggestive from the postmortem report, wherein the doctor found a ligature mark on the body of the deceased and the cause of death was opined as asphyxia due to hanging.

¶12

4. It is argued that there is no abetment and instigation of any kind by the applicant which has any nexus with the death of the deceased. The applicant has no mens-rea at all. There is no overt act whatsoever of the applicant which resulted in the death of the deceased, the applicant has no motive at all to commit the aforesaid offence. It is further argued that investigation in the present matter has concluded and a charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants on which the trial court vide its order dated 3.7.2023 has taken cognizance and summoned the applicants.

¶13

5. It is further argued that during the pendency of investigation, the applicants filed a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 8622 of 2022 (Aradhana

¶14

Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and three others) in which vide order dated 7.7.2022, a division bench of this Court directed that no coercive action shall be taken against the petitioners therein.

¶15

6. It is submitted that there is nothing reported and on record to show that the applicants did not cooperate in investigation. It is further argued that the applicants have no criminal history as stated in paragraph 26 of the affidavit.

¶16

7. Matter requires consideration.

¶17

8. Issue notice to the first informant/opposite party no. 2 returnable within three weeks.

¶18

9. Counter affidavit may be filed by the first informant and the learned counsel for the State within the said period.

¶19

10. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

¶20

11. Let the matter be listed on 24.4.2024.

¶21

12. Till the next date of listing, the applicants Aradhana Singh and Arjun Kumar Balmiki, if arrested, shall be released on interim anticipatory bail in Case Crime No. 59 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Katra, District Mirzapur on their furnishing a fresh personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶22

(i) the applicants shall make themselves available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned.

¶23

(ii) 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court.

¶24

(iii) the applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport the same shall be deposited by them before the concerned court.

¶25

13. In case, the applicants do not co-operate in the proceedings of the trial, this order shall stand automatically recalled/vacated and the applicants shall be taken into custody, forthwith.

¶26

14. Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶27

15. The court concerned shall not be prejudiced by any observation made by this Court while considering the present anticipatory bail application of the applicants."

¶28

Counsel for the applicants contends that applicants have been falsely implicated in the instant case. Further, as per the allegations in the first information report the necessary ingredients to

¶29

constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., are not made out. The applicant, in no manner, abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. After investigation charge-sheet has been submitted against the applicants and they have been summoned by the trial court for facing trial. The applicants had cooperated in the investigation. No custodial interrogation is required. The applicants are appearing before the trial court on the dates fixed. The applicants have no criminal antecedents.

¶30

Learned Brief Holder for the State opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail but could not satisfactorily dispute the aforesaid submissions from the record.

¶31

Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants as recorded in the order dated 06.03.2024, considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of the applicants and in particular, the fact that as per the allegations in the first information report and the material collected during the course of investigation, the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence under Section 306 I.P.C., are not made out against the applicants, the fact that the applicants had cooperated in the investigation and no custodial interrogation is required, the fact that no violation of conditions or misuse of liberty of bail has been pointed out by the learned A.G.A., without commenting on merits of the case, I am of the opinion that the applicants are entitled to be enlarged on anticipatory bail.

¶32

In the event of arrest, the applicants- Aradhana Singh and Arjun Kumar Balmiki, involved in the aforesaid case crime, be released on anticipatory bail during pendency of trial, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:-

¶33

(i) The applicants shall make themselves available on each and every date fixed in the matter by the court concerned;

¶34

(ii) 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court;

¶35

(iii) The applicants shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if they have passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the concerned court.

¶36

Further, in default of any of the conditions, the court concerned is at liberty to pass appropriate orders for enforcing and compelling the same.

¶37

The application stands disposed of.

¶38

Order Date :- 5.9.2024 Neeraj

¶39

Digitally signed by :- NEERAJ KUMAR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Aradhana Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aradhana Singh and Another v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Rishabh @ Rishabh Panwar vs State of Up

Durga Sharma vs State of U.P.

Sanjay @ Triloki and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Avdhesh and Another vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Rohit vs State of U.P.

Subhash Chandra Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another