Allowed antecedent bail to petitioner challenging alleged abetment to suicide, holding prima facie no evidence exists that petitioner instigated or aided deceased to commit suicide.
Bail granted subject to personal bond of Rs.50,000 and two sureties each of Rs.25,000.
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.
[2024:RJ-JD:24034]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 399/2024
Kalpitraj Vaishnav S/o Shri Rajesh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Near Somnath Chouraha, Kankroli, Tehsil Rajsamand, Dist. Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
----Respondents
| For Petitioner(s) | : Mr. Dalpat Singh |
|---|---|
| For Respondent(s) | : Mr. Vikram Sharma,PP |
| For Complainant | : Mr. VLS Rajpurohit |
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
27/05/2024
This application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, in connection with FIR No.396/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dungarpur, District Dungarpur for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, the deceased Mst.’P’ committed suicide owing to the mental trauma caused to her by the present petitioner. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel submitted that as per prosecution, the engagement of the deceased was fixed with the present petitioner on 2.6.2023 and the marriage was fixed to be held on 04.12.2023. However, after some time of the engagement, the petitioner started neglecting the deceased.
[2024:RJ-JD:24034]
[CRLMB-399/2024]
(2 of 4)
Further allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he used to lay stress and pressure upon the deceased by asking her to bring dowry in huge quantity.
Learned counsel submitted that owing to the differences between the deceased and the petitioner, the petitioner decided to break off his engagement with the deceased. Learned counsel vehemently contended that bald allegations have been levelled against the petitioner, without there being any iota of evidence available on record to indicate that the petitioner by any of his actions, instigated, abetted or intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide.
Reliance was placed upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex court in M. Arjuna vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police , reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315 , wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-
Learned counsel further also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in
(2010)12 SCC 190 , wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court while deciding a criminal appeal held that abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in
[2024:RJ-JD:24034]
[CRLMB-399/2024]
(3 of 4)
doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has already joined the investigation and looking to the nature of allegations against him, his custodial interrogation is not necessitated in the present case. He thus implored the Court to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the present anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently submitted that sufficient evidence is available on record to indicate that the petitioner used to mentally harass the deceased. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted owing to the alleged acts of the present petitioner, the deceased had ended her life by committing suicide. Learned counsel for the complainant thus prayed that the present bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may be rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the marriage of the deceased was fixed with the present petitioner. However, due to differences between the petitioner and the deceased, they decided to break their relationship. In the opinion of this Court,
[2024:RJ-JD:24034]
[CRLMB-399/2024]
(4 of 4)
there is no prima facie evidence available on record, capable of suggesting that the petitioner had at any time during the subsistence of their relationship or afterwards, intended by any of his acts abet or intentionally aid to instigate, the deceased to commit suicide. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the necessary ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are not satisfied in the present case. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the present bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of the petitioner- Kalpitraj Vaishnav S/o Shri Rajesh in connection with FIR No.396/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dungarpur, the petitioner shall be released on bail; provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
83-TarunGoyal/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether to grant anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. given prima facie lack of evidence for abetting suicide.
Whether the ingredients of instigation or abetment under Section 306 IPC are satisfied based on available evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M. Arjuna vs. StateRelied on¶22
(2019) 3 SCC 315 · Who else cites this
S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar MahajanRelied on¶24
(2010)12 SCC 190 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Kalpitraj Vaishnav
State Of Rajasthan
Vandit Vaishnav
Kuldeep Mathur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
