Gaurav Tyagi vs State Of U.P.
2016 Latest Caselaw 6191 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?.F.R.
 
Court No. - 52
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 26905 of 2016
 

 
Applicant :- Gaurav Tyagi
 
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- A.C.Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,S.K.Tyagi
 

 
Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee,J.

Counter affidavit and  two supplementary affidavits filed by the respective parties are taken on record.

This application has been filed seeking the release of the applicant on bail in Case Crime No. 494 of 2016 u/s 306 IPC, Police Station- Muradanagar, District- Ghaziabad .

Heard Sri A.C. Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A.for the State and Sri S.K. Tyagi, learned counsel for the complainant.

Perused the record.

Submission of learned counsel for the applicant is that the applicant was the tenant of the house, while the deceased was landlord and it is said that the applicant was guilty of abetment, as a result of which, the deceased committed suicide. Further submission is that the prosecution evidence does not bring forth the necessary ingredients of abetment and the facts and circumstances are such which fall short of proving that the applicant either instigated the deceased to commit suicide or abetted the same. Further submission is that the primary evidence, which has been made the basis to implicate the accused-applicant in the crime is an alleged suicide note left by the deceased in which the only thing mentioned was this that the deceased was feeling so perturbed and harassed because of the applicant that he was constrained to commit suicide and that the applicant should be held responsible for the same. Contention is that sensitivity of a human being depends upon a number of factors and human traits including the level of emotions of a particular person play crucial  role in this regard. The people may commit suicide even on a trifling reason just as they may withstand the pressure of strongly upsetting circumstances. In the present case, there was a dispute between the landlord and tenant. The dispute was not such which may, in all probability, be said to be sufficient to drive the deceased to commit suicide. There has to be tangible evidence in order to prove that a particular man instigated the victim to commit suicide. Further submission is that it is true that there may be cases where the direct evidence may not be available and there may be circumstances which may demonstrate that there were such impelling circumstances created by accused which were sufficient to drive any reasonable man to commit suicide. But the evidence available on record is very deficient in proving any such conduct of the applicant. Even if the contents of the suicide note are taken such, it is difficult to hold that the applicant actually instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. But much emphasis has been laid by the counsel for the applicant in order to show that  the suicide note and the signatures made therein are not actually that of the deceased. It was pointed out that the case diary would indicate that the Investigating Officer made an attempt to get some hand writings and the signatures of the deceased in order to get the same compared with the original suicide note but despite his efforts and visits which he made to the family members of the deceased, he was not provided necessary hand writings or signatures of the deceased for comparison.  Learned counsel for the applicant has shown to the Court a part of the case diary wherein the visits of the I.O. are mentioned and also where inability for some reason or the other to provide  the same has been shown by the wife of the deceased.  Further submission is that actually there were also some proceedings under Section 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. for which  the deceased had submitted his bail-bonds. Learned counsel for the applicant has drawn the attention of the Court to Annexure-5, which is a paper relating to such proceedings, which contains the signatures of the deceased. Counsel has tried to emphasise that the signatures made therein on the very face of record are looking different from the signature on suicide note. Learned counsel for the applicant has also drawn the attention of the Court to the report of the private Hand Writing Expert which has been obtained on behalf of the accused by way of which the said signatures available on the proceedings under Sections 107 and 116 of Cr.P.C. have been compared with the aforesaid photocopy of the suicide note  and the opinion has been given in negative and it has been opined that both the signatures are dissimilar. Further submission is that the prosecution has not been able to procure any material which may rebut the opinion of the private  hand writing expert at this stage. The argument is that even if it is presumed that since there was a dispute between the landlord and the tenant, as a result of which the deceased committed suicide, then too it will be stretching things too far to hold the applicant responsible for abetment in the facts and circumstances of this particular case. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. It has also been pointed out that the applicant is in jail since 22.6.2016 having no criminal history and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail.

After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case and the nature of evidence available on record, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail.

Let the applicant- Gaurav Tyagi involved in Case Crime No. 494 of 2016 u/s 306 IPC, P.S.- Muradnagar, District- Ghaziabad be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :-

(1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever.

(2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice.

It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail.

It may be further observed that bail of the applicant is being granted by this court primarily on the ground that there is no reliable evidence available on record so far, to convincingly show that the alleged suicide note was actually written and signed by the deceased. If at any stage in future, the Investigating Officer through proper investigation gets or procures the evidence of government handwriting expert to the effect that the suicide note was actually written by the deceased and signed by him, the prosecution/complainant will have the liberty to move cancellation of bail before the court below itself. In case of such eventuality, the court below shall itself have the right and liberty to proceed for cancellation of bail on the strength of this observation made by this Court.

It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case.

Order Date :- 27.9.2016

CPP/-