Allahabad High Court
Virendra Bahadur Singh vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. on 18 April, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:22116
Court No. - 15
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 2405 of 2024
Applicant :- Virendra Bahadur Singh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.
Counsel for Applicant :- Ashwani Kumar Singh,Anurag Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Subhash Vidyarthi,J.
1. Heard Sri Ashwani Kumar Singh, the learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Anant Pratap Singh, the learned AGA for the State, Sri Shubham Tripathi, the learned counsel for the informant and perused the records.
2. On 23.10.2024 the applicant was granted interim anticipatory bail by this court by means of following order:-
"1. Heard Shri A.K. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Nikhil Singh, learned Additional Government Advocate-I for the State.
2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the applicant has requested that he may be permitted to implead the informant/complainant in the array of the opposite parties as opposite party no.2.
3. Considering the aforesaid request, learned counsel for the applicant is permitted to implead the informant/complainant as opposite party no.2 in the array of the opposite parties during course of the day and such correction may be indicated in the system of the Court also.
4. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is apprehending his arrest in FIR/Case Crime No. 448 of 2024, under Section 108 B.N.S. 2023, Police Station- Kotwali Rudauli, District- Faizabad/Ayodhya.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in this case as he has not committed any offence as alleged in the prosecution story. He has further submitted that if the entire prosecution story is taken on its face value, then no overt act of the present applicant is there to instigate/abet the victim (since deceased) to commit suicide. Even no specific allegation to that effect has been levelled in the FIR. The FIR itself reads that there was some monetary transaction between the deceased and the present applicant. The victim (since deceased) had given a cheque of Rs. 2 lakhs to repay the amount taken from the applicant but when such cheque was presented in the Bank, the same could not be honoured. Since the present applicant is to take a sum of Rs. 4 lakhs from the deceased who had taken the amount from the applicant, therefore, the present applicant may not instigate or abet the victim (since deceased) to commit suicide.
6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the judgement of the Apex Court in re: Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujrat and Another reported in (2010) 8 SCC 628; Rajesh Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2020) 15 SCC 359; and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and Others reported in (2021) 2 SCC 427 by submitting that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. For the convenience, Para 10 and 14 in Re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra) are being reproduced below:
"10. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide.
14. As regards the suicide note, which is a document of about 15 pages, all that we can say is that it is an anguish expressed by the driver who felt that his boss (the accused) had wronged him. The suicide note and the FIR do not impress us at all. They cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the accused that the deceased might commit suicide. If the prosecutions are allowed to continue on such basis, it will be difficult for every superior officer even to work."
(emphasis supplied)
7. Para 9 in of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Re: Rajesh (supra) is being reproduced herein-below:
"9. Conviction under Section 306 IPC is not sustainable 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. In order to bring a case within the purview 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 instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 IPC.(See Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State of West Bengal1)."
(emphasis supplied)
8. On the basis of aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that in the present case, there is no overt act on the part of the present applicant and unless and until there is any overt act or positive act on the part of the applicant/accused to instigate/abet to commit suicide, the ingredients of Section 306 IPC would not be attracted. Therefore, learned counsel has submitted that in the present case, the applicant may not be implicated under Section 306 IPC.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant has further submitted that investigation is going on and the present applicant is willing to participate in the investigation. Furthermore, the present applicant is an old person aged about 60 years and he is not having any prior criminal history, therefore, his liberty may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report.
10. Learned AGA has, however, opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail and has requested that some time may be given to him to file counter affidavit.
11. Therefore, without entering into the merits of the issue, considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties, the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Madan Mohan Singh (supra), Rajesh (supra) and Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra), contents and allegation of the FIR, other material available on record and the undertaking of the applicant that he shall cooperate with the investigation, I find it appropriate that the liberty of the present applicant may be protected till completion of the investigation and filing of the police report in view of the dictum of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 SCC online SC 98.
12. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicant- Virendra Bahadur Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime number till completion of the investigation and filing of police report on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court/court concerned/arresting authority with the following conditions:-
(i). that the applicant shall appear before the investigating officer and trial court on each date fixed unless his personal presence is exempted;
(ii). that 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 officer or tamper with the evidence;
(iii). that the applicant shall not leave India without prior permission of the court;
(iv). that the applicant shall not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witnesses and shall not tamper with evidence during trial;
(v). that in case of breach of any of the above conditions the court below shall have the liberty to cancel the bail;
(vi). that in default of any of the conditions mentioned above, the learned counsel for the State shall be at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.
13. Let notice be issued to newly impleaded opposite party no. 2.
14. Steps be taken within a week.
15. If steps are taken, office shall proceed accordingly.
16. Let counter affidavit be filed within a period of four weeks.
17. Rejoinder affidavit, if any, may be filed within a period of one week thereafter.
18. List this case in the week commencing 09.12.2024 within top ten cases."
3. The State has filed a counter affidavit annexing therewith the relevant material collected during investigation, including the entries made in the case diary. After perusal of the suicide note left by the deceased wherein he wrote that the accused persons are threatening him repetitively. In this note, no mention has been made regarding any amount having been taken by the deceased and any demand made for repayment of the amount. Involvement of the applicant in two other criminal cases has been shown in the counter affidavit.
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder affidavit stating that in one of the two cases, the Investigating Officer has filed a final report whereas in the other case the applicant has already been released on bail.
5. Learned A.G.A. did not point out any violation of the conditions of interim anticipatory bail committed by the applicant. Nothing has come to light which may persuade this court to take a view, other than the view taken at the time of granting interim anticipatory bail to the applicant.
6. In view of above, the interim order dated 23.10.2024 is made absolute and the anticipatory bail application is allowed in terms of the order dated 23.10.2024.
.
(Subhash Vidyarthi, J.)
Order Date :- 18.4.2025
Pradeep/-
