Allahabad High Court
Girish Singh Tomar vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 1 March, 2023
Bench: Subhash Chandra Sharma
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 80
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 178 of 2023
Applicant :- Girish Singh Tomar
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Kumar Sreshtha,Gaurav Singh,Sr. Advocate
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Rakesh Kumar Shukla
Hon'ble Subhash Chandra Sharma,J.
Heard Sri Kripa Shankar Singh, learned senior counsel assisted by Sri Kumar Sreshtha and Sri Gaurav Singh on behalf of the applicant and Sri Rakesh Kumar Shukla, learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0687 of 2022, under section 306 I.P.C., Police Station Kotwali, District Lalitpur, during the pendency of investigation.
Facts in brief are that the deceased Uday Bajpai was working in Express Bees Courier Company at Agra with the applicant and other co-accused persons. There was dispute between the accused persons and the deceased on 3/4.09.2022 regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged against the deceased and four other persons namely Deepak Rathor, Vansh Shivhare, Mukul Rana and Rohit by co-accused Naitik Shukla u/s 147, 323, 504, 506 I.P.C. on 04.09.2022 at police station Etmaddaula, Agra as Crime No.559/22. Later on, on 17.09.2022 the deceased committed suicide in a room of hotel at Lalitpur leaving a suicide note containing 11 pages in which he made responsible for his suicide to the present applicant and two other co-accused persons Natik Shukla and Dilip Tomar and F.I.R. in this regard was lodged by father of the deceased on 09.10.2022.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that there is nothing on record to show that present applicant instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Further submitted that the suicide note said to have been written by the deceased contains the details of incident as happened with him on 04.09.2022 which does not constitute offence u/s 306 I.P.C against the applicant. It is also submitted that there was interval of 13 days from the date of alleged incident of marpit between the deceased and Natik regarding which an F.I.R. was lodged but no any complaint or information was made by the deceased either to the police or to his parents or other relatives regarding any kind of harassment made by the applicant with the deceased. In this way, the suicide committed by the deceased cannot be said to be the direct effect of the F.I.R. which was lodged by Naitik Shukla on 04.09.2022. It is also submitted that the deceased committed suicide in Lalitpur in a hotel room, therefore, it can not also be said that the applicant and other co-accused persons subjected him to harassment at Lalitpur as a result he committed suicide and there is nothing in the suicide note in this regard. Since investigation is going on and applicant is under apprehension of imminent arrest. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he would not misuse the liberty of bail and would cooperate with the investigation.
Learned counsel for the applicant has relied his arguments on the basis of judgment as decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Shabbir Hussain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & others passed in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7284 of 2017 decided on 10.02.2017 and State of West Bengal vs. Indrajit Kundu & others passed in Criminal Appeal No.2181 of 2009 decided on 18.10.2019.
Learned counsel for the opposite party as well as learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and urged that in this case the deceased was being harassed by the applicant and other co-accused persons that was the reason he committed suicide at Lalitpur in a hotel room. It is also urged that the deceased was transferred from Agra to Lalitpur only for the purpose of making his harassment, therefore, the applicant is not entitled for anticipatory bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties as well as learned A.G.A., perusal of record alongwith suicide note and the interval between the alleged incident of quarrel between the deceased and co-accused Naitik and suicide of the deceased, there appears a case for anticipatory bail, therefore, the applicant is entitled to be released on anticipatory bail in this case for the limited period considering the exception 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 of the applicant- Girish Singh Tomar, shall be released on anticipatory bail till the submission of police report, if any, under section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer of the police station concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a police office 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 office;
(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.
In default of any of the conditions, the Investigating Officer is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
It is made clear that the benefit of this order will not be extended to other co-accused persons.
Order Date :- 1.3.2023
Ashok Gupta
