Allowed

Shersingh @ Ballo S/O Vansho, v. State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC15 Apr 2024CRLMB/138/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed anticipatory bail for petitioners accused under Section 306 IPC in a suicide case. The Court held that demanding repayment of a lawful debt, absent evidence of harassment or instigation soon before death, does not constitute an offence. Custodial interrogation was deemed unnecessary.

What did the court decide?

Anticipatory bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, and conditions to cooperate with investigation.

Shersingh @ Ballo S/O Vansho, Vs State of Rajasthan — Anticipatory Bail | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:17533]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 15904/2023

¶4

Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Jagannath, R/o Lakaad Bazar, Kasba Kama, P.s Kama, District Bharatpur, Raj. (At Present Confined In Sub Jail, Deeg).

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp

¶8

Rajani Gulati W/o Sanjeev Gulati, R/o Kutti Mohalla, Kasba-Kama, P.s. Kama.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

Connected With

¶11

S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 138/2024

¶12

Shersingh @ Ballo S/o Vansho, R/o Gram Kanwada, Tehsil Kaman District Bharatpur.

¶13

Shribhan S/o Kishansingh, R/o Gram Barauli Dhau, Police Station Kaman District Bharatpur.

¶14

----Petitioners

¶15

Versus

¶16

State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.

¶17

----Respondent

¶18

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Surendra Singh, Adv. Mr. Anoop Kumar, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP Mr. Shashank Shekhar Pachauri, Adv.

¶19

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRAVEER BHATNAGAR

¶20

Order

¶21

15/04/2024

¶22

Apprehending their arrest in connection with FIR

¶23

No.212/2023 registered at Police Station Kama, District Bharatpur for the offence(s) under Section 306 of IPC, the petitioners have

[2024:RJ-JP:17533]

[CRLMB-15904/2023]

(2 of 4)

preferred these anticipatory bail applications under Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have falsely been involved in this case. In the suicidal note, it has been mentioned that deceased received loan of Rs.44,000/- from the accused-petitioner Rajesh Kumar Meena and he has falsely executed an agreement of Rs.2,50,000/-. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that only demanding lawful money from the deceased, is not within the purview of the offence under Section 306 of IPC. There is no incriminating evidence indicating the fact that soon before the death, the deceased was harassed or instigated by the petitioners, which resulted into his suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and custodial investigation of the petitioners are not required. Prima-facie no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out against the accused-petitioners. Therefore, their anticipatory bail applications may be allowed.

¶29

Learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned counsel for the complainant vehemently oppose the anticipatory bail applications of the accused-petitioners and submits that the petitioner Rajesh Kumar Meena has demanded Rs.2,50,000/- from the deceased, whereas, deceased only borrowed Rs.44,000/- from the petitioner Rajesh Kumar Meena. It is also contended that through Whats App the petitioners have threatened the deceased, which resulted into the suicidal act of the deceased, therefore, considering the gravity

(3 of 4)

[2024:RJ-JP:17533]

[CRLMB-15904/2023]

of the offence, the anticipatory bail applications of the accusedpetitioners may be dismissed.

¶34

Heard and perused the case diary and the suicidal note.

¶35

In the suicidal note, deceased has mentioned that he borrowed Rs.44,000/- from the accused-petitioner Rajesh Kumar Meena and Rs.1,80,0000/- from the accused-petitioner Shersingh @ Ballo. The accused-petitioner Rajesh Kumar Meena after cheating the deceased falsely entered the amount of Rs.2,50,000/- in favour of the deceased. In the suicidal note of the deceased, it has been mentioned as under:-

¶36

"....'ksjflag mQZ dYyks s/o cU'kks xkao duokMk ftlls eSus 1 yk[k 80 gtkj :i;s fy;s Fks vkSj vc rd 12 yk[k 40 gtkj :i;s ns pqdk gw¡ vkSj vc 3 yk[k :i;s vkSj ekax jgk gSA

¶37

jkts'k eh.kk s/o txuukFk eh.kk fuoklh nsoh njoktk dkeka ftlls eSaus 44 gtkj #i;s 1 eghuk igys fy;s gS vkSj mlus /kks[ks ls 100 ds LVkEi ij <kbZ yk[k #i;s fy[kok fy;k gSA"

¶38

In the Whats App chat, between the deceased and the Rajesh Kumar Meena, Rajesh Kumar Meena has simply demanded Rs.2,50,000/- from the deceased. Apart from that there is no other threat through Whats App to the deceased for getting back the borrowed amount. Similarly the other petitioners have also lended amount to the deceased. Demand of money itself is not an incriminating fact. Custodial interrogation of the petitioners are not required, therefore considering the above facts, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, I deem it just and proper to allow the anticipatory bail application of the accusedpetitioners.

¶39

Accordingly, these anticipatory bail applications under

[CRLMB-15904/2023]

[2024:RJ-JP:17533]

(4 of 4)

Section 438 Cr.P.C. are allowed. It is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioners namely (1) Rajesh Kumar Meena S/o Jagannath, 2. Shersingh @ Ballo S/o Vansho and 3. Shribhan S/o Kishansingh, in connection with FIR No.212/2023, registered at Police Station Kama, District Bharatpur, they shall be enlarged on bail, provided each of them furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the sum of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the S.H.O/I.O/Arresting Officer of the concerned Police Station on the following conditions:-

¶44

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

¶45

(ii) that the petitioners 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 them from disclosing such facts to the court or any police officer, and

¶46

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without previous permission of the court.

¶47

(PRAVEER BHATNAGAR),J

¶48

Ashwani Kr Srivastava /-189-190

Shersingh @ Ballo S/O Vansho, v. State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shersingh @ Ballo S/O Vansho, v. State of Rajasthan

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

Satyaveer S/O Nand Ram Vs State of Rajasthan

Naresh Kumar @ Narsi S/O Suwalal Vs State of Rajasthan

Yogendra Singh S/O Sh. Bhoop Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Hemraj S/O Chhote Lal Vs the State of Rajasthan

Sakawat Ali S/O Sadakat Ali @ Sadda Bhai Vs State of Rajasthan

Mohd. Taslim S/O Abdul Rasheed Vs State of Rajasthan