This bail application concerned offences including abetment to suicide. The court found insufficient prima facie evidence to suggest the petitioner instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Consequently, the bail application was allowed.
Petitioner released on bail by furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties of Rs.25,000 each.
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.
[2023/RJJD/015576]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 791/2023
Ghanshyam Vaishnav @ Sonu S/o Omprakash Vaishnav, Aged About 22 Years, Khara Bera Bheemawatan, P.s. Luni, Jodhpur At Present Gulab Nagar-C, Behind Rto Office, P.s. Mata Ka Than, Jodhpur. (At Present Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
----Petitioner
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr.JVS Deora. |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr.Mahipal Bishnoi,P.P. |
| For Complainant | : Mr.M.S.Rajpurohit. |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR ORDER
16/05/2023
This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.454/2022 registered at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur City (East) for the offence punishable under Sections 354, 305, 363, 366, 354K, 354GH, 376(2)(N) IPC and Section 6, 11, 12, 5L, 7 and 8 of POCSO Act.
As per prosecution, on 9.8.2022 the deceased Mst.’G’ committed suicide by jumping in a well situated at Imartiya Bera, Mahamandir, Jodhpur. As per prosecution, deceased was being harassed and humiliated by the present petitioner, who pressurized her to marry him. The behaviour of the petitioner
[2023/RJJD/015576]
[CRLMB-791/2023]
(2 of 4)
caused immense mental torture to the deceased compelling her to commit suicide.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there exists no evidence indicating that the deceased committed suicide on being instigated or abeted by the petitioner. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner either intentionally or unintentionally did not aid/instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any positive act on the part of the petitioner to instigate or aid the deceased to commit suicide, he cannot be made an accused in the present case. To substantiate aforesaid contention, attention of the Court was drawn towards FIR, charge-sheet dated 1.10.2022 and the statements of the complainant (mother of the deceased), one Mst. ’H’ and Mst. ’B’, said to be close friends of the deceased. Learned counsel submitted that from the statements of Mst.’H’ and Mst.’B’, it is evident that the deceased was in consensual sexual relations with the petitioner with whom she wanted to enter into matrimonial relations. However, the family members of the deceased were not agreeable to the relations between them. Learned counsel submitted that in absence of any evidence available on record to suggest that the petitioner is guilty of the act of abetting deceased to commit suicide, he deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the bail application.
[2023/RJJD/015576]
[CRLMB-791/2023]
(3 of 4)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant and perused the material available on record.
Hon’ble the Apex court in M. Arjuna vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police , reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 , pleased to hold as under:-
“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment, (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”
Having considered the submissions advanced at the bar and facts and circumstances of the case so also the statements of various witnesses recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., prima-facie, this Court does not find sufficient evidence indicating that the petitioner is guilty of the act of abetment of suicide. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner deserves indulgence of bail in the present cse.
Consequently, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner - Ghanshyam Vaishnav @ Sonu S/o Omprakash Vaishnav arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.454/2022 registered at Police Station Mahamandir, Jodhpur City (East) shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the
[2023/RJJD/015576]
[CRLMB-791/2023]
(4 of 4)
satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
/tarun goyal/ Sr.No.14
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves bail given the lack of prima facie evidence of instigation or abetment of suicide.
Whether the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are satisfied against the petitioner.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M. Arjuna vs. StateReferred¶25
(2019) 3 SCC 315 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Ghanshyam Vaishnav @ Sonu
State Of Rajasthan
Rajendra Gehlot
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
