The High Court of Chhattisgarh rejected an bail application filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the applicant charged with instigating the deceased to suicide under Section 306 IPC.
Bail application rejected; applicant not released.
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.
1
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
MCRC No. 5201 of 2017
---- Applicant
Versus
---- Respondent
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Applicant : Shri T.K. Jha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Lav Sharma, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ram Prasanna Sharma Order On Board
22.11.2017
2 . This is an application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the applicant, who has been arrested in connection with Crime No.227/2017, registered at Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District Surguja (CG) for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.
3 . As per the case of prosecution, deceased Dipika Choubey committed suicide on 16.6.2017. The marriage between the deceased and the applicant was settled two years ago, but on 12.6.2017, the applicant levelled charge against the deceased that she is having illicit relations with some other boys and he will
2
not marry her. On 14.6.2017, when mother of the deceased asked the applicant as to why he charged against her daughter then in reply, the applicant repeated that the deceased is having illicit relations with other boys.
4 . Prima facie it appears that prior to the incident, the applicant charged the deceased and that was sarcastic to her and in this way he instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
5 . Learned counsel for the applicant submits that no prima facie case under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant and the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. are not reliable. He placed reliance on the decision of the apex court, reported in (2017) 7 SCC 780, Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh . He submits that the trial may take some time, therefore, the applicant may be released on bail.
5 . On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes 6he bail application. He submits that the act of the applicant falls within the purview of abatement to commit suicide and he is not entitled to be released on bail.
8 . Looking to the fact that marriage of the deceased was to be solemnized with the applicant and prior to the date of incident, he made allegations against the deceased regarding her illicit relations which shows the conduct of the applicant to instigate the
3
deceased to commit suicide, whose marriage was to be solemnized with him.
9 . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the material collected against the applicant, I am of the view that it is not a fit case to release the applicant on bail.
10 . Accordingly, the bail application is rejected.
Sd/
(Ram Prasanna Sharma) JUDGE
sunita
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the applicant is entitled to release on regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in a charge under Section 306 IPC where instigation to suicide is alleged.
Whether the prima facie case made out against the applicant justifies denial of bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal PradeshReferred¶18
(2017) 7 SCC 780, Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Vinit Choubey
State Of Chhattisgarh
Ram Prasanna Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
