Allowed

Om Shankar @ Uma Shankar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Dec 2024ABAIL/2403/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, Om Shankar, facing charges under Section 306 IPC. Drawing on Supreme Court precedents requiring positive acts for conviction, the court found no overt instigation by the applicant. Bail was conditioned on cooperation and compliance.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted pending investigation and filing of police report on furnishing personal bond and sureties.

Om Shankar @ Uma Shankar Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl… — Quashing and FIR | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Court No. - 11

¶2

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2403 of 2024

¶3

Applicant :- Om Shankar @ Uma Shankar Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. And Another

¶4

Counsel for Applicant :- Ambrish Singh Yadav,Anjani Kumar Mishra,Swati Singh Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Sudeep Seth, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri A.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Nikhil Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State.

¶7

As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in FIR/Case Crime No. 7 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Jankipuram, District Lucknow.

¶8

Learned Senior Advocate has stated that in the issue in question, the investigation is going on and no police report has been filed till date. One writ petition bearing Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No. 6473 of 2024 has been filed by the informant/complainant before this Court seeking a direction to the investigating agency to complete the investigation and file police report. On such petition, this Court by means of order dated 6.9.2024 (annexure no. 11) directed the Commissioner of Police, Lucknow to ensure that the investigation is positively concluded and police report is submitted within a period of four weeks, fixing next date for 25.10.2024.

¶9

Learned Senior Advocate has submitted that even if the averment of the FIR is considered on its face value, even then

¶10

there is no overt act of the present applicant instigating/abetting the victim (since deceased) to commit suicide. As per allegation of the FIR, the brother of the informant/complainant committed suicide on account of ill behaviour and threats being extended to him by the family members of one Jyoti Arya with whom, he was in live in relationship and the said Jyoti Arya committed suicide. The family members of Jyoti Arya have been implicated as accused persons as accused nos. 1 to 4 who are residents of Rajasthan, whereas the present applicant and his family members have been implicated in the array of the accused persons from accused nos. 5 to 7 who are the residents of Bareilly, U.P.

¶11

Learned Senior Advocate has stated that the present applicant is not a relative of accused nos. 1 to 5 cited in the FIR. Nothing has been indicated or alleged as to how the present applicant instigated/abetted the brother of the informant/complainant to commit suicide.

¶12

In support of his contentions, learned Senior Advocate has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359; and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 by submitting that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. For the convenience, Para 10 and 14 in Re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra) are being reproduced below:

¶13

" 10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less

¶14

under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the socalled suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.

¶15

14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work."

¶16

(emphasis supplied)

¶17

Para 9 in of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Rajesh (supra) is being reproduced herein-below:

¶18

" 9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused, which led or compelled the person to commit suicide. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.(See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal1)."

¶19

(emphasis supplied)

¶20

On the basis of aforesaid submissions, Shri Sudeep Seth has submitted that in the present case, there is no overt act on the part of the present applicant and unless and until there is any overt act or positive act on the part of the applicant/accused to instigate/abet to commit suicide, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC would not be attracted. Therefore, Shri Seth has submitted that in the present applicant may not be implicated under Section 306 IPC.

¶21

Learned Senior Advocate has further submitted that investigation is going on and the present applicant is willing to

¶22

participate in the investigation. Furthermore, the present applicant is an old person aged about 65 years and suffering from some age related ailments, therefore, his liberty may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report.

¶23

Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has requested that some time may be given to him to file counter affidavit.

¶24

Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra), Rajesh (supra) and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), contents and allegation of the FIR, other material available on record and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the investigation, I find it appropriate that the liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.

¶25

It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Om Shankar @ Uma Shankar shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of the investigation and filing of police report on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/court concerned/arresting authority with the following conditions:-

¶26

(i). that the applicant shall appear before the investigating officer and trial court on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted;

¶27

(ii). that the applicant shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the

¶28

facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

¶29

(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;

¶30

(iv). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial;

¶31

(v). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;

¶32

(vi). that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶33

Let notice be issued to the opposite party no. 2.

¶34

Steps be taken within a week.

¶35

If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly.

¶36

Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.

¶37

Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter.

¶38

List this case in the week commencing 09.12.2024 within top ten cases.

¶39

Order Date :- 23.10.2024 Shravan

¶40

Digitally signed by :- SHRAVAN KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Om Shankar @ Uma Shankar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Shankar @ Uma Shankar v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Prin. Secy. (Home) Lko. and Another

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

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sumit Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rohit Modanwal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko and 3 Others

Dharamveer Singh @ Chandan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko

Rajan Maurya vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko.

Sachin Singh @ Shivam Singh vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.

Raj Kumar Yadav @ Kariya vs State of U.P Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Secrt. Lko.