Manoj Singh vs State Of U.P.
2021 Latest Caselaw 1303 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 379 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Manoj Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- O.P.S. Rathore,Sr. Advocate V.P. Srivastava
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,R.P.S. Chauhan
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Sri V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri O.P.S. Rathore, learned counsels for the applicant, Sri R.P.S. Chauhan, learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA for the State.

The instant Anticipatory Bail Application has been filed with a prayer to grant an anticipatory bail to the applicant, namely, Manoj Singh in Case Crime No.- 304 of 2020, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station- Shivkuti, District- Prayagraj.

Prior notice of this bail application was served in the office of Government Advocate and as per Chapter XVIII, Rule 18 of the Allahabad High Court Rules and as per direction dated 20.11.2020 of this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No. 8072 of 2020, Govind Mishra @ Chhotu Versus State of U.P., hence, this anticipatory bail application is being heard. Grant of further time to the learned A.G.A as per Section 438 (3) Cr.P.C. (U.P. Amendment) is not required.

There is allegation in the FIR that sister of the informant was employed on the post of Personal Secretary in the Allahabad High Court and she was married to the applicant in the year 2010. The husband of the deceased used to quarrel with his sister for compelling her to spend her earnings as desired by her husband and this was the source of regular dispute between the couple. The deceased informed her parents about the aforesaid fact number of times and dispute between them was got settled. The deceased had two children and on 10.9.2020, similar dispute took place between the couple and on 12.9.2020 at 4:45 p.m. the other sister of the informant informed him that applicant had called and informed that the deceased had tried to commit suicide by way of hanging, but she has been brought down. Sister of the informant went to the house of deceased at 5:45 p.m. and found that she was lying, when the applicant was sitting in normal condition. She was unconscious. The informant alongwith his father reached the house of the applicant at 6:10 p.m. and asked the applicant to take the deceased to the hospital. The applicant avoided going to hospital. Father of the informant was going to call the doctor residing on the flat below the flat of the applicant, but the applicant asked him not to do so. Even then he went to call the doctor. The doctor came and examined the deceased and asked the informant to take her to Colvin hospital immediately. The doctor also informed that since morning quarrel was continuing between couple and sound was coming. The applicant brought a car after 20-25 minutes and thereafter first went to Vatsalya hospital, where deceased was not admitted and thereafter, she was taken to Colvin hospital. From Colvin hospital, she was referred to Swaroop Rani Hospital, where she died in the night during treatment. After preparation of inquest report, post mortem report and cremation of deceased, FIR was lodged on 14.9.2020.

Learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has submitted that there is no allegation in the FIR that applicant throttled or strangulated the deceased to death. In the FIR itself, it is mentioned that deceased hanged herself. The ingredients of constituting the offence under Section 306 IPC are not made out against the applicant. There is no allegation of abetment of deceased to commit suicide by the applicant. He has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das Vs. Kartar Singh and other, (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 205, wherein the Apex Court has held that mere harassment of wife by husband or in-laws, due to disputes or differences, without anything more, pursuant to which, if wife commits suicide, it will not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC. He has submitted that there was dispute between husband and wife regarding income of the deceased and this became the cause of suicide by the deceased and hence applicant deserves to be enlarged on anticipatory bail by this Court.

Learned counsel for the informant and learned AGA have vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant. Learned counsel for the informant has filed the counter affidavit and submitted that since the date of offence applicant is absconding and not making himself available for interrogation by the Investigation Officer. The applicant has not made any declaration that he will present himself before the Investigation Officer for the purpose of investigation. The applicant had deliberately killed his wife. He was inside the house at the time of occurrence. Therefore, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the fact regarding suicide by deceased is on him. The applicant was aware that the deceased needed immediate medical aid after she was brought down from the noose, but he did nothing to get her treated, which shows that he left the deceased to die. The deceased died on account of negligence on the part of the applicant. Therefore, deceased had not committed suicide, the offence under Section 304 IPC is made out against the applicant. The statements of the witnesses recorded by the Investigation Officer fully prove the prosecution case. During the investigation, the Investigating Officer has collected credible evidence against the applicant and process under Section 82 Cr.P.C. has been issued against him.

After considering the rival submissions, this Court finds that there was dispute between deceased and applicant regarding income of the deceased. The applicant is also employed in C.D.A. Pension and is a central government employee. From the allegations in the FIR itself, it is clear that the deceased committed suicide and hence the applicant has been implicated for offence under Section 306 IPC. The Apex Court in the case of Bhagwan Das (Supra) has held that dispute between the husband and wife, without anything more, cannot attract the ingredients of Section 107 IPC and therefore, implication of the applicant for offence under Section 306 is unjustified. Further deceased had left behind two minor children, who are to be looked after by the applicant as single parent. However, fact remains that applicant has not cooperated in investigation and is avoiding appearance before the Investigating Officer for the purpose of investigation of the case, hence he is entitled for limited protection only.

This court further finds that there is a case registered against the applicant. It cannot be definitely said when the police may apprehend him. After the lodging of FIR the arrest can be made by the police at will. There is no definite period fixed for the police to arrest an accused against whom an FIR has been lodged. The courts have repeatedly held that arrest should be the last option for the police and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative or his custodial interrogation is required. Irrational and indiscriminate arrests are gross violation of human rights. In the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1994 SC 1349 the Apex Court has referred to the third report of National Police Commission wherein it is mentioned that arrests by the police in India is one of the chief source of corruption in the police. The report suggested that, by and large, nearly 60 percent of the arrests were either unnecessary or unjustified and that such unjustified police action accounted for 43.2 percent of expenditure of the jails. Personal liberty is a very precious fundamental rights and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative. According to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the peculiar case the arrest of an accused should be made.

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusation and his antecedents, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail for limited period in this case considering the exceptions considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail till cognizance is taken by the court on police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C. before the competent Court on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned Court with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by the police officer as and when required;

(ii) The applicant 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 from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has passport, the same shall be deposited by him before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

(iv) The party shall file computer generated copy of such order downloaded from the official website of High Court Allahabad.

(v) The concerned Court/Authority/Official shall verify the authenticity of such computerized copy of the order from the official website of High Court Allahabad and shall make a declaration of such verification in writing.

In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer/Govt. Advocate is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

The Investigating Officer is directed to conclude the investigation, if pending, of the present case in accordance with law, expeditiously, independently without being prejudiced by any observations made by this Court while considering and deciding the present anticipatory bail application of the applicant.

The applicant is directed to produce a copy of this order downloaded from the official website of this Court before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten days from today, if investigation is in progress who shall ensure the compliance of present order.

Order Date :- 21.1.2021

Ruchi Agrahari