Allahabad High Court
Sangeeta Devi vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 March, 2023
Bench: Krishan Pahal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 79
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 67 of 2023
Applicant :- Sangeeta Devi
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Sanyukta Singh,Himanshu Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Ms. Sanyukta Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri R.M. Yadav, learned AGA for the State and perused the material placed on record.
3. The instant bail application has been filed u/s 439 of Cr.P.C. on behalf of the applicant with a prayer to release her on bail in Case Crime No. 178 of 2021, under Section 306 of IPC, Police Station Mahewaghat, District Kaushambi, during the pendency of trial.
4. As per prosecution story, the applicant is stated to have entered into illicit relationship with the husband of the deceased person and she along with other co-accused persons are stated to have beaten her up by lathi and danda on 15.02.2021 at about 11:00 PM thereby causing injuries to her body and she succumbed to injuries in the same night.
5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the applicant that he has been falsely implicated in the present case. She has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR itself is delayed by about 10 months and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. Learned counsel has further stated that even the application u/s 156(3) Cr.P.C. was moved on 16.03.2021 which is also delayed by about a month and there is no proper explanation of the said delay of one month.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has further stated that the case was instituted u/s 304 IPC and later on, it was transformed to Section 306 IPC. The applicant is a lady and there is no direct or cogent evidence of abetment against the applicant, thus, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not fulfilled. To buttress her argument, learned counsel has placed much reliance upon the judgement of Apex Court passed in Mariano Anto Bruno and Others Vs. The Inspector of Police reported in AIR 2022 SC 4994. The relevant paras-34, 36 & 38 of the judgement of Mariano Anto Bruno (supra) are reproduced as under:-
"34. A bare perusal of the impugned judgment indicates that the High Court erred in recording the finding that there is sufficient evidence for convicting the appellants under Section 306 IPC losing sight of the fact that there exists no evidence on record indicating that the deceased was meted out with harassment by the appellants just before her death. It is well-settled that not only there has to be evidence of continuous harassment, but there should be cogent evidence to establish a positive action by the accused which should more or less be proximate to the time of occurrence, which action can said to have led or compelled the person to commit suicide.
***
36. To convict a person under Section 306 IPC, there has to be clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which leads deceased to commit suicide finding no other option and the act must be such reflecting intention of the accused to push deceased into such a position that he commits suicide. The prosecution has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased committed suicide and Appellant No. 1 abetted the commission of suicide of the deceased. In the present case, both the elements are absent.
***
38. This Court has time and again reiterated that before convicting an accused under Section 306 IPC, the Court must scrupulously examine the facts and circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced before it in order to find out whether cruelty and harassment meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without their 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, conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
7. 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. The applicant is languishing in jail since 14.11.2022 having no criminal history to his credit, deserves to be released on bail. In case, the applicant is released on bail, she will not misuse the liberty of bail and shall cooperate with the trial.
8. Per contra, learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the bail prayer of the applicant but could not dispute the fact of delay in lodging the FIR and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, nature of offence, evidence on record, stage of trial and considering the complicity of accused, severity of punishment, at this stage, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I find it a fit case for releasing the applicant on bail.
10. Without expressing any opinion on the merits, the bail application is allowed. Let the applicant Sangeeta Devi involved in aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions that :-
(i) The applicant shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence by intimidating/ pressurizing the witnesses, during the investigation or trial.
(ii) The applicant shall cooperate in the trial sincerely without seeking any adjournment.
(iii) The applicant shall not indulge in any criminal activity or commission of any crime after being released on bail.
11. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail.
12. Identity, status and residence proof of the applicant and sureties be verified by the court concerned before the bonds are accepted.
13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses.
Order Date :- 16.3.2023
Siddhant
