Allowed

Om Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Apr 2024MCRC/1471/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the bail application of a 19-year-old applicant accused of abetment to suicide and stalking. The Court found no material evidence of abetment despite allegations, noting the applicant had been in jail since November 2023 and was granted bail.

What did the court decide?

Bail allowed subject to execution of personal bond of Rs. 50,000 and conditions under S. 437(1) CrPC.

Om Pathak Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Bail and Remand | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

MCRC No. 1471 of 2024

¶5

Om Pathak S/o Lakhinarayan Pathak Aged About 19 Years R/o Joda Pipal Ambikapur, Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---- Applicant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer Police Station- Bhatgaon, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---- Non-Applicant

¶10

(Cause Title is taken from Case Information System)

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr. Rajbahadur Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Dilman Rati Minj, G.A.

¶12

Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board

¶13

1 0.04.2024

¶14

Heard.

¶15

This is the first bail application. The applicant has preferred this bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for the grant of bail as he apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.93/2023 for the offence punishable under Sections 306 and 354D of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station- Bhatgaon, District – Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶16

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 07.12.2022, the father of the deceased lodged merg intimation on 18.07.2023 on account of the death of his daughter by hanging. After merg enquiry, an F.I.R. was registered against the applicant on 30.07.2023. Allegations against the present applicant are that he was stalking and harassing the deceased and he used to call repeatedly to her, and therefore, she committed suicide. On such complaint, the Police registered the offences as stated above.

¶17

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that ingredients of Section 107 of I.P.C. are missing and there was no abetment. He would further submit that

¶18

¶19

the witnesses have categorically stated in their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC that there were talking terms between the deceased and the applicant. He would also submit that the deceased and the applicant called each other more than thousands of times. It is also contended that the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant has been in jail since 20.11.2023. Thus, he would pray for the grant of bail.

¶20

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would oppose the bail application. Mr. Minj would submit that the deceased aged about 21 years was stalked and harassed by the applicant, and on account of such harassment, she committed suicide. He would further submit that there was abetment on the part of the applicant; therefore, the application deserves to be dismissed.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case diary.

¶22

Section 107 of the I.P.C. deals with abetment and the same is reproduced herein below:-

¶23

“Section 107. Abetment of a thing.

¶24

A person abets the doing of a thing, who—

¶25

First.—Instigates any person to do that thing; or

¶26

Secondly.—Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

¶27

Thirdly.—Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

¶28

Explanation 1.—A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

¶29

Illustration

¶30

A, a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, wilfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C. Here B abets by instigation the apprehension of C. Explanation 2.—Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.”

¶31

¶32

In the present case, there is no allegation with regard to abetment. The applicant and the deceased used to talk to each other frequently, and they have called each other more than thousands of times. Though there is an allegation with regard to stalking and harassment, but there is no material with regard to these allegations. Further, the charge sheet has been filed and the applicant aged about 19 years is in jail since 20.11.2023, therefore, I am inclined to enlarge the applicant on bail by extending the benefit of Section 439 of the CrPC. Accordingly, the instant MCRC is allowed .

¶33

It is directed that in the event of the applicant executing a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 50,000/- to the satisfaction of the concerned arresting officer, he shall be released on bail, on the following conditions:-

¶34

(a) he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶35

(b) he 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 him from disclosing such fact to the Court; and

¶36

¶37

Sd/-

¶38

(Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge

¶39

$iddhant

Om Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Pathak v. State of Chhattisgarh

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

Similar cases

M/S. Mahalaxmi Rice Mill, Vs Union of India

M/S. Ganpati Industries (Registration No. MA703244) Vs Union of India

M/S Meera Traders Vs Union of India

Shailesh Gupta Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Vaibhavi Kashyap Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Sharma Vs State of Chhattisgarh