Mamta Rajput vs State Of U.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 6146 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

Reserved on 13.02.2023
 
Delivered on 27.02.2023 
 

 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 38063 of 2022
 

 
Applicant :- Mamta Rajput
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan,Lal Mani Singh,Raghuvir Sharan Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Deepak Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Siddharth,J.

Heard Mohd. Samiuzzaman Khan, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Deepak Singh, learned counsel for the informant and the learned AGA for the State.

The instant bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant, Mamta Rajput, with a prayer to release him on bail in Case Crime No.584 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar.

There is allegation in the first information report against the applicant and two co-accused, namely, Prince Singh and Madan Mohan Shukla, Advocate, that they have abetted the offence of suicide of deceased. It has been alleged in the first information report that the son of the informant, Akhand Pratap Singh, was working in the Bharat Oil West Management Company as Assistant General Manager in a private company. In his company Prince Singh, was also working. He had close relation-ship with co-accused, Madan Mohan Shukla, Advocate. About five months ago the wife of his son saw photograph of girl in his mobile phone then she asked him about her. His son informed that she is friend of co-accused, Prince Singh and her name is Mamta Singh, the applicant, with whom, Prince Singh, is having love affair. His son was introduced to, Mamta Singh, by Prince Singh. Mamta Singh got some objectionable video made with his son and he informed his wife that she is blackmailing and compelling him to either marry her or make payment of Rs.25 lakhs. Thereafter the applicant and two co-accused also threatened him stating that he should either pay Rs.25 lakhs to Mamta Singh or to marry her. The son of the informant paid Rs. One lakh to applicant, Mamta Singh and informed the informant in this regard on 20.05.2022. On 22.05.2022 entire family had gone to see a girl for marriage of the younger son of the informant and when his deceased son was alone, he committed suicide by way of hanging. It was further alleged that son of informant was blackmailed by the applicant and co-accused persons and they compelled him to commit suicide. His Face book ID is being misused by them.

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant has been implicated in this case on the basis of suspicion. There is no credible evidence against her except the allegation in the first information report. The deceased was married man and he could never have been compelled by the applicant to marry her during the subsistence of earlier marriage.

Learned counsel for the informant has vehemently opposed the prayer for bail application and has submitted that the statement of the brother of the deceased, Dhiraj Pratap Singh, was recorded wherein he has clearly stated that deceased had already married the applicant on 03.05.2022 on Bara Devi temple and 22.05.2022. The applicant compelled the deceased that he should take her to his house and divorce his wife. On the same day deceased committed suicide. Therefore, there is close proximity between the two incidents.

Learned AGA has also opposed the prayer for bail of the applicant.

This Court, after going through rival submissions, is of the view that the deceased was at the most harassed to such extent by the applicant and other co-accussed, that he committed suicide. This Court in the case of Udai Singh Vs. State of Haryana 2019(17) SCC 301, has held in para 16 that on mere allegation of abetment of suicide no conviction can be ordered. There must be proof of direct or indirect act of incitement to commit suicide . Merely on the allegation of harassment without there being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on the part of the accused which led or compelled the person to commit suicide implication cannot be justified.

In the present case deceased was a married man. He befriended the applicant and was caught by his wife. The applicant is alleged to have compelled him to either marry her or pay money. He did both, paid money and also married her. Then why he committed suicide is not explained. He had option to lodge first information report against the applicant. Remove the co-accused, who was friend of applicant, from job. He was having options but he did not exercised them and committed suicide. The mens era on the part of applicant for committing the offence under Section 306 I.P.C is not found.

Keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused; submissions of the learned counsel for the parties noted above; finding force in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant; keeping view the uncertainty regarding conclusion of trial; one sided investigation by police, ignoring the case of accused side; applicant being under trial having fundamental right to speedy trial; larger mandate of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India and recent judgment dated 11.07.2022 of the Apex Court in the case of Satendra Kumar Antil vs. C.B.I., passed in S.L.P (Crl.) No. 5191 of 2021 and considering 5-6 times overcrowding in jails over and above their capacity by the under trials and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed.

Let the applicant, Mamta Rajput, involved in Case Crime No.584 of 2022, under Section 306 I.P.C, Police Station Chakeri, District Kanpur Nagar. be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence or threaten the witnesses.

(ii) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she 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.

(iii) The applicant shall remain present before the Trial Court on each date fixed, either personally or as directed by the Court. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the Trial Court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code.

(iv) In case the applicant misuse the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence, proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicants fail 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.

(v) 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 her in accordance with law.

In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the complainant is free to move an application for cancellation of bail before this court.

Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.

The trial court is directed to conclude the trial against the applicant as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of one year from the date of production of certified copy of this order.

Registrar (compliance) is directed to communicate this order to the court concerned within a week.

Order Date :- 27.2.2023

SS