Allahabad High Court
Nilesh Sahu vs State Of U.P. And Another on 1 April, 2024
Author: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
Bench: Shekhar Kumar Yadav
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:54785
Court No. - 74
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2529 of 2024
Applicant :- Nilesh Sahu
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Lakshmi Kant Pandey,Niwas Kumar Gupta,Rajrshi Gupta,Sunil Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav, J.
1. Heard Mr. Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Lakshmi Kant Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.
2. This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No.0160 of 2017, under Sections 498-A, 323, 504, 506, 306 IPC and 3/4 D.P. Act, Police Station Saidpur, District Ghazipur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case just to harass the applicant in fact no such incident has taken place as alleged in the impugned FIR. The applicant has never committed any offence as alleged in the impugned FIR. Initially the impugned FIR has been lodged against five accused persons, who are father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law (dewar), step mother-in-law (chachiya sas) and applicant, who is husband of the deceased on 23.01.20217 whereas the incident is alleged to have taken place on 14.01.2017 and after investigation, charge sheet has been submitted only against the applicant whereas the other accused persons were exonerated. The marriage of applicant and deceased Soni Gupta was solemnized on 07.12.2015 and bidai took place on 09.12.2015 and on the same day the applicant was returning to Pune and on the way of Pune Maharashtra, Soni Gupta was became seriously ill, therefore, the applicant admitted her wife in Nobel Hospital Pune on 10.12.2025 and when condition of Soni Gupta was not improved the father of Soni Gupta brought her to his house and thereafter shows her in SGPGI Lucknow in Department of Neurology but still the mental status of the deceased was not good. It is further alleged that on 14.01.2017 the deceased went to the roof of her maternal house at Saidpur to sit in the sun and there were water falling on the roof and unfortunately the deceased feet slipped and she fell down from the roof, as a result, she received grievous injuries and due to the injuries she admitted in BHU, Varanasi and during treatment she died on 26.01.2017 due to cardiac arrest. As per postmortem report, four injuries were found on the body of the deceased and cause of death has been shown due to hemorrhage. He further submits that the impugned FIR has been lodged after 10 days of the alleged incident on false and fabricated ground just for blackmailing to the applicant. The applicant and his family members have never beaten the daughter of the informant nor they have demanded any dowry. It is pertinent to mention here that the deceased herself has stated to the applicant that in the year 2009 she was fallen in waterfall in which she received injuries on her head and when she became ill, her treatment was going in SGPGI but her treatment was not completed, which also reveals from the prescription of doctor of SGPGI, hence, the parents of deceased Soni Gupta cheated the applicant because they never informed to the applicant about mental status of the deceased. There is no evidence on record which goes to show that applicant in any manner had ever instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. An offence punishable under Section 306 IPC would stand only if there is an abetement for commission of crime. Except general allegation, there is no other evidence available on record to show that essential ingredients of Section 107 IPC can be attracted, therefore, it cannot be said that present appellant had instigated, provoked, incited, urged or encouraged the deceased to commit the suicide. Essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are completely missing even the contents of abetment of suicide have not been there as provided under Section 107 IPC. As per provisions of Section 306 IPC, there must be an ingredient of abetment to commit suicide but in the present case there is no ingredient of abetment either by instigation or by any other mode has been made by the applicant. From the perusal of version of the FIR as well as statement of other witnesses, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant. The applicant is having no previous criminal history as has been mentioned in paragraph 40 of the affidavit. He further submits that there is apprehension of imminent arrest of the applicant and in case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he will not misuse the liberty and would co-operate with the trial.
4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance in the case of Naresh Kumar vs. State of Haryana passed in Criminal Appeal No.1722 of 2010 (paragraphs 22 to 26) decided on 22.02.2024 and Mohit Singhal and another vs. The State of Uttarakhand and others, 2023 0 Supreme (SC) 1189.
5. Learned A.G.A. has vehemently opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of the applicant but could not dispute the aforesaid contentions raised by learned counsel for the applicant.
6. Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.
7. In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant-Nilesh Sahu, involved in the aforesaid case crime be released on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation.
(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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer.
(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(iv) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.
(v) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi) 2020 SCC Online SC 98.
(vii) 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 default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against his in accordance with law.
8. In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 1.4.2024
Ajeet
