Ravindra Ojha vs State Of U.P.
2022 Latest Caselaw 4043 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 11
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13579 of 2021
 

 
Applicant :- Ravindra Ojha
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Satendra Kumar Singh,Abhishek Misra
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.

Heard Sri Abhishek Misra, learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant is in jail since 1.8.2021 in Crime No. 308/2020 u/s 306 I.P.C., P.S. Kumarganj, District Ayodhya (Faizabad). It has been submitted that the applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged.

Attention has been drawn towards F.I.R. which has been lodged against one Vikram Giri u/s 306/498A IPC. As per the allegations of the F.I.R. the informant who is father of the victim (since deceased) has alleged that his daughter was married to one Vikram Giri but the Vikram Giri used to torture his daughter and used to assault her on one allegation or the other. His son-in-law Vikram Giri had taken his wife to the house of the informant and told that he will not live with her. As per informant on account of aforesaid reason his daughter committed suicide by taking poison.

Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards the statement of the informant, wife of the informant wherein no allegation was leveled against the present applicant. Even in the supplementary statement of informant and his wife nothing has been alleged against the present applicant. However, in the statement of the sister of the victim (since deceased) (Annexure no. 8) she has stated that her sister (victim) was having relation with the present applicant prior to her marriage and after her marriage with Vikram Giri she was not happy. On the positive assurance of the present applicant she tried to get the decree of divorce. Thereafter, she called the present applicant who was living at Kalyan (Maharashtra) but the present applicant had not behaved with her properly and feeling frustrated from the behaviour of the present applicant she committed suicide.

Learned counsel has submitted that the aforesaid version of the sister of the victim is hearsay and there is no material with the prosecution to show that the present applicant was having any active role to convince or abet the victim to commit suicide, therefore, the very ingredient of section 306 IPC are missing in the present case. He has further submitted that on the basis of the sister of the victim the present applicant may not be implicated inasmuch as per the version of the F.I.R. and other statements of informant and his wife no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been leveled against the present applicant. The present applicant has no criminal history of any kind. As a matter of fact he was in Kalyan (Maharashtra) for the purposes of service and has not instigated in any manner whatsoever to the victim. Charge-sheet has already been filed in this case, so there is no apprehension of absconding or tampering with the evidence / witnesses by the applicant.

The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that Hon'ble Apex Court in its judgment in re: Velladurai vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police passed in Criminal Appeal No. 953 of 2021 has held as under :

9. Now so far as the offence under section 306 IPC is concerned, in a case where if any person instigates other person to commit suicide and as a result of such instigation the other person commits suicide, the person causing the instigation is liable to be punished for the offence under section 306 IPC for abetting the commission of suicide. Therefore, in order to bring a case within the provision of section 306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. As observed and held by this Court in the case of Amalendu Pal (supra), mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under section 306 IPC.

9.1. Abetment by a person is when a person instigates another to do something. Instigation can be inferred where the accused had, by his acts or omission created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide. In the instant case, the allegation against the appellant is that there was a quarrel on the day of occurrence. There is no other material on record which indicates abetment. There is no material on record that the appellant-accused played an active role by an act of instigating the deceased to facilitate the commission of suicide. On the contrary, in the present case, even the appellant-accused also tried to commit suicide and consumed pesticide. Under the circumstances and in the facts and circumstances of the case and there is no other material on record which indicates abetment, both the High Court as well as the learned trial Court have committed an error in convicting the accused for the offence under Section 306 IPC."

The learned counsel for the applicant has given an undertaking on behalf of applicant that the applicant shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial proceedings and shall abide by all terms and conditions of bail, if granted.

Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the aforesaid facts as argued by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, on being confronted on the point as to whether the prosecution has got any material at this stage to suggest that the present applicant was having any active role to abet the victim to commit suicide except the statement of the sister of the victim which is prima-facie hearsay, learned AGA has submitted that presently whatever material was available has been filed but if some more time is given he may file counter affidavit. On that he was confronted that he was given time to file counter affidavit on 25.11.2021 and 3.12.2021 but no counter affidavit has been filed. Learned AGA has submitted that, however, he has complete instructions and Case-Diary, therefore, he has assisted the Court on the basis of aforesaid material.

Without entering into the merits of the case and considering the allegation of the F.I.R. wherein no allegation of any kind whatsoever has been leveled against the present applicant, the statement of the informant and his wife and supplementary statement of the informant and his wife wherein no allegation has been leveled against the present applicant and the statement of the sister of the victim which is prima-facie hearsay evidence and on the basis of such statement at the stage of bail it may not be observed that the present applicant was actively involved abetting the victim to commit suicide.

However, the accusation / guilt of the present applicant may be established before the learned trial court by appreciating the evidences and material, therefore, the learned trial court shall conduct and conclude the trial strictly in accordance with law with expedition invoking the provisions of section 309 IPC and learned trial court shall not be influenced from any observation made herein above. However, for the purposes of disposal of bail application, the submissions, so advanced by learned counsel for the applicant and the dictum of Apex Court in re: Velladurai vs. State represented by the Inspector of Police (supra) are sufficient and the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case.

Let the applicant Ravindra Ojha, involved in aforesaid case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions which are being imposed in the interest of justice:-

(i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law.

(ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.

(v) The applicant shall not leave the country without permission of the Court concerned.

.

(Rajesh Singh Chauhan, J.)

Order Date :- 25.5.2022

Om