Allowed

Suresh Kumar Bind v. State Of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand HC13 May 2014BA1/508/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hon'ble U.C. Dhyani, J. allowed the bail application under Section 439 CrPC for the applicant charged under Section 306 IPC regarding abetment to suicide. The Court found a case made out for bail as the FIR and suicide note did not prima facie constitute the offence.

What did the court decide?

The bail application is allowed. The accused-applicant to be released on bail by executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties.

Suresh Kumar Bind Vs State Of Uttarakhand — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Uttarakhand HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

¶2

ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Dated : Nainital the 13^th May, 2014

¶3

First Bail Application No.508 of 2014 Order on the bail application of accused

¶4

CRIMINAL SIDE

¶5

Suresh Kumar Bind … Applicant versus

¶6

State of Uttarakhand … Respondent

¶7

Mr. Sandeep Kothari, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. V. S. Pal, A.G.A. for the respondent State.

¶8

U.C. Dhyani, J. (Oral)

¶9

The applicant seeks bail in connection with Case Crime no.133 of 2014, under Sections 306 IPC, P.S. Kotwali Gangnahar Roorkee, District Haridwar.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered the grounds taken in the bail application and perused the documents on record.

¶11

According to the FIR, the Divisional Manager of the company levelled false allegations of theft on the victim, who was innocent and did not commit the same. The alleged pressure was mounted upon the victim, as a consequence of which, he committed suicide. A suicide note was found from the pocket of victim, which suicide note held the present applicant responsible for such suicide. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted, among other things, that there is no evidence of abetment, so as to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC. Reliance is placed upon decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in M. Mohan vs. State with Velmurugan & another vs. State 2011 AIR

¶12

-2-

¶13

SCW 1601, Mahendra Singh & another vs. State of M.P. 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731, Netai Dutta vs. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 659, S. S. Chhena vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & another (2011) 2 SCC (Cri) 465 and Kishori Lal vs. State of M.P. (2007) 3 SCC (Cri) 701 to show that a bare reading of the FIR / suicide note does not constitute the offence against the applicant. Prima facie , this Court is satisfied with the submission of learned counsel for the applicant. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant has no previous criminal history.

¶14

Considering the above facts and circumstances, a case of bail is made out in favour of the present applicant. The bail application is allowed. Let the accused-applicant be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and furnishing two sureties, each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the A.C.J.M., Roorkee.

¶15

(U. C. Dhyani, J.)

¶16

Dated 13^th May, 2014 Rawat

Suresh Kumar Bind v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar Bind v. State Of Uttarakhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rabbani @ Mohd. Abdul Rabban Vs State Of Uttarakhand

M.e.sylvia Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Another

Nandan Prasad and Another Vs State Of Uttarakhand

Vijay Gupta and Others Vs Anchal Gupta

Vijay Gupta and Others Vs State Of Uttarakhand and Others

Raju and Others Vs State of Uttarakhand and Others