Kalpitraj Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24034)

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Kalpitraj Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24034) on 27 May, 2024

Author: Kuldeep Mathur

Bench: Kuldeep Mathur

[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
1.       State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2.       Vandit Vaishnav S/o Shri Vinod Vaishnav, R/o Surmo Ka
         Chowk,sutharwada, P.s. Kotwali, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.).
                                                                 ----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. (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:52:45 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24034] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-399/2024] 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:-

"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."

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 (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:52:45 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24034] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-399/2024] 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, (Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:52:45 PM) [2024:RJ-JD:24034] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-399/2024] 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 concerned investigating officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:

(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(ii). that the petitioner 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 facts to the court or any police officer; and

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

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J 83-TarunGoyal/-

(Downloaded on 28/05/2024 at 08:52:45 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)