In a recent ruling, the Allahabad High Court denied an applicant's plea for anticipatory bail under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The case involved the alleged suicide of the deceased, who was the husband of the informant and the primary breadwinner for his family, including his ailing father, daughter, and wife.
The tragic incident occurred on the night of 5/6.01.2022 when the deceased took his own life. Subsequently, the informant, who had initially arrived at her in-laws' house, left due to their improper behaviour following her husband's 'Terahawi' ritual. She received a WhatsApp message containing a suicide note from her husband's phone, which was being used by her father-in-law. In response, she filed an FIR at Police Station Naini in Prayagraj.
The applicant's counsel argued that the applicants, who had previously been granted anticipatory bail, had no evidence linking them to the alleged suicide and had not abused this privilege. They contended that Section 107 IPC did not apply since the female applicants were not involved in abetting the deceased. Additionally, the co-accused had already been granted bail, suggesting the absence of elements under Section 306 IPC. Considering their gender, the lack of a pending chargesheet, and their willingness to cooperate in the trial, their detention seemed unnecessary and potentially damaging to their reputation.
Counsel also highlighted the absence of eyewitnesses and the delayed filing of the FIR, both of which supported the plea for anticipatory bail. However, the informant's counsel opposed the application, citing the applicants' prior Section 482 Cr.P.C. relinquishment and the Supreme Court's ruling in ‘Prem Shankar Prasad v. State of Bihar & Anr’. They contended that Section 438 Cr.P.C. was inapplicable once Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C. proceedings commenced. These proceedings concluded on 18.01.2023, and the applicants' previous Section 482 Cr.P.C. application was unsuccessful, rendering them ineligible for anticipatory bail.
The High Court, in its judgment, underlined that Section 438 Cr.P.C. was not applicable in this case since all the judgments referred to by the applicants in the application do not coincide with the facts of the current case. The Court relied on Benjamin N. Cardozo’s work and stated that applying precedents in legal disputes requires an element of judicial discretion, for which judges must bear responsibility. It was noted that judges often find exceptions to what was once considered the rule and vice versa. In this context, the interplay between logical analysis and practical experience is vital when invoking precedents.
Picture Source :
