Savitri Vs State of U.P.

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111138

Court No. - 66

Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 22316 of 2025

Applicant :- Savitri Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Atharva Dixit,Pranav Tiwary Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Ashutosh Srivastava,J.

¶6

Heard Shri Manish Tiwary, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Sri Atharva Dixit, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Yogendra Pandey, learned AGA for the State-respondents and perused the record.

¶7

The instant bail application under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been moved on behalf of accused-applicant, Savitri, seeking enlargement on bail in Case Crime No. 229 of 2025, under Sections 85 and 108 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, Police Station- Bisrakh, DistrictGautam Budh Nagar during the pendency of the trial in the court below. The bail application of the applicant in the Court below was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar vide order dated 13.05.2025 and the applicant is stated to be languishing in jail since 06.04.2025.

¶8

The FIR dated 05.04.2025 giving rise to the Case Crime No. 229 of 2025 was lodged against the applicant and co-accused Raj Kumar with the allegation that Arti, the sister of the first informant had solemnized marriage with co-accused, Rajkumar in 2012 and 3 children (i.e. two daughters and one son) were born to her out of the wedlock. It was the second marriage of Arti and the co-accused Raj Kumar since the very inception did not like Arti and often beat her up, did not give her funds to run the house, made her to sleep on the floor, harassed her for not bringing money. Arti was compelled to let out a portion of the house and used to cook food for her tenants to earn a living from the rental income and money obtained from cooking food for her tenants. Raj Kumar is also alleged to have illicit relations with the applicant who is his Bhabhi and resided in the same house along with her husband. It is further alleged that on 03.04.2025, Arti had seen Raj Kumar and the applicant in a compromising position and the accused persons had beaten Arti up and stated that she could go and die with her children. Arti thereafter committed suicide on 04.04.2025.

¶9

Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Sr. Counsel has argued that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely roped in this very case crime number for ulterior motives. It has been argued that the deceased Arti before committing suicide by hanging herself smothered her own son Rohan and hanged her daughter Sohini before

¶10

hanging herself. He has invited the attention of the Court to the post-mortem report of Rohan conducted on 05.04.2025 which records several abrasions on his body and cause of death as asphyxia due to ante-mortem smothering. The post-mortem carried on the body of daughter Sohini and Arti records the presence of ligature marks and cause of death recorded is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging.

¶11

Sri Manish Tiwary, learned Sr. Counsel contends that allegations against the applicant and co-accused Rajkumar are entirely general in nature and no specific role or any specific date or time has been assigned to the applicant to make out an offence under Section 108 B.N.S. No FIR or complaint was ever lodged by the deceased regarding the illicit relationship of the applicant with co-accused Raj Kumar alleged by the prosecution. It has been argued that the only evidence against the applicant is the statement of the independent witnesses, Gurpreet Singh, Abhishek and Sagar who were tenants of the deceased Arti. Learned Sr. Counsel has placed the statement of the surviving daughter of the deceased Arti, namely, Km. Rohini to submits that the statement is indicative of the fact that something is going to happen and police will arrive soon. Arti asked her to go to her maternal uncle's house and she along with her younger daughter and son went to the terrace and committed suicide after smothering the son.

¶12

It has also been argued that there is no evidence implicating the applicant for abetting suicide. In order to bring home, the charge of abetment to suicide, specific abetment of the accused with intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased is necessary for attracting Section 108 B.N.S. Besides mere harassment would not constitute as sufficient instigation to commit suicide and it is required to be shown that the alleged harassment left the victim with no other alternative other than to commit suicide. In order to buttress his submission, he has relied upon a judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of Jayedeepsinh Pravinsinh Chavda v. State of Gujarat in Criminal Appeal No. 5175 of 2024 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7957 of 2024 dated 10.12.2024). Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment is quoted hereunder:

¶13

"18. For a conviction under Section 306 of the IPC, it is a well-established legal principle that the presence of clear mens rea—the intention to abet the act—is essential. Mere harassment, by itself, is not sufficient to find an accused guilty of abetting suicide. The prosecution must demonstrate an active or direct action by the accused that led the deceased to take his/her own life. The element of mens rea cannot simply be presumed or inferred; it must be evident and explicitly discernible. Without this, the foundational requirement for establishing abetment under the law is not satisfied, underscoring the necessity of a deliberate and conspicuous intent to provoke or contribute to the act of suicide. The same position was laid down by this Court in S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190, wherein it was observed that:

¶14

"25. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide,

¶15

conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by the Supreme Court is clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

¶16

To bring a conviction under section 306, IPC it is necessary to establish a clear mens rea to instigate or push the deceased to commit suicide. It requires certain such act, omission, creation of circumstances, or words which would incite or provoke another person to commit suicide. This Court in the case of Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618, defined the word "instigate" as under:

¶17

"20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of instigation (2001) 9 SCC 618 though it is not necessary that actual words must be used to that effect or what constitutes instigation must necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be capable of being spelt out. The present one is not a case where the accused had by his acts or omission or by a continued course of conduct created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide in which case an instigation may have been inferred. A word uttered in the fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation."

¶18

Therefore, for a conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be clear evidence of direct or indirect acts of incitement to commit suicide. The cause of suicide, especially in the context of abetment, involves complex attributes of human behavior and reactions, (2011) 3 SCC 626 (2010) 1 SCC 707 (2007) SCC OnLine Kar 824 requiring the Court to rely on cogent and convincing proof of the accused's role in instigating the act. Mere allegations of harassment are not enough unless the accused's actions were so compelling that the victim perceived no alternative but to take their own life. Such actions must also be proximate to the time of the suicide. The Court examines whether the accused's conduct, including provoking, urging, or tarnishing the victim's self-esteem, created an unbearable situation. If the accused's actions were intended only to harass or express anger, they might not meet the threshold for abetment or investigation. Each case demands a careful evaluation of facts, considering the accused's intent and its impact on the victim."

¶19

Learned Sr. Counsel further argued that the present case is bereft of any such evidence. The deceased had the option to take recourse to law instead of committing suicide. It is also submitted that chargesheet has already been filed against the applicant and other co-accused on 26.04.2025 under Section 85 and 108 B.N.S. The applicant has no criminal history to her credit except the present case and undertakes that she will extend all cooperation in the trial and not misuse the liberty of bail if released on bail. Hence, bail has been prayed for.

¶20

Learned AGA has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the aforesaid fact.

¶21

Considering all above facts and circumstances, the nature of accusations, severity of the punishment in the case of conviction and nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering with the witness and prima facie case, but without commenting on merit of case, a case for bail is made out.

¶22

Accordingly, the bail application is allowed .

¶23

Let the accused-applicant, Savitri , involved in above mentioned case crime number be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two reliable sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to the following conditions:

¶24

i. The applicant will not tamper with the evidence.

¶25

ii. The applicant will not indulge in any criminal activity.

¶26

iii. The applicant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witnesses and cooperate in the trial.

¶27

iv. The applicant will appear regularly on each and every date fixed by the trial court unless her personal appearance is exempted through counsel by the court concerned.

¶28

In the event of breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the court below will be at liberty to proceed to cancel her bail.

¶29

Order Date :- 11.7.2025 Anjali

¶30

Digitally signed by :- ANJALI SHARMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Savitri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savitri v. State of U.P.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases