Allahabad High Court
Manilal Patidar vs State Of U.P. on 28 April, 2025
Author: Raj Beer Singh
Bench: Raj Beer Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:64571
Reserved
Court No. - 71
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 50206 of 2023
Applicant :- Manilal Patidar
Opposite Party :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rahul Kumar Jadaun,Varad Nath
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Chandra Prakash Tiwari,G.A.
Hon'ble Raj Beer Singh,J.
1. Heard Sri Vinay Saran, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Rahul Kumar Jadaun along with Sri Varad Nath, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Chandra Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Rupak Chaubey, learned A.G.A. for the State.
2. The present bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant in case crime No. 234 of 2020, under Sections 387, 120-B, 504, 506, 306 IPC & Section 7/7A/8/12/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, police station Kabrai, District Mahoba with the prayer to enlarge the applicant on bail.
3. The informant Ravikant Tripathi has lodged first information report on 11.09.2020, alleging that his brother Indrakant Tripathi (hereinafter referred to 'deceased') is partner in 'R.J.S. Crusher' and earlier he was also associated with 'Maa Kali Associates' and 'I.P. Traders' and he was having licence of sale and purchase of explosive substances. Another dealership of explosive substance was with 'Suraya Chemical' of Suresh Soni and 'Ajay Enterprises' of Brahmdutt. Said Suresh Soni and Brahmdutt were having a liaison with the then Superintendent of Police, Mahoba namely Manilal Patidar (applicant) and they used to pay Rs. 6 lacs monthly to the applicant. In the month of June, 2020, the applicant made illegal demand of Rs. 6 lacs from the deceased but the deceased expressed his inability, due to which the applicant as well as with his subordinate police officials have threatened the deceased to implicate him in false cases and to ruin his life. In the month of June, July, 2020 the applicant forcibly extorted Rs. 6 lacs from the deceased but after that deceased has refused to pay any further amount. The applicant got the deceased threatened by the Station House Officer, police station Kabrai and above said Suresh Soni. On 03.09.2020 the deceased went to the office of the applicant and told that his partners have already closed the business of explosive substance and he has also suffered huge losses and thus, he is unable to pay any amount. The applicant has threatened that he would get him in jail and he would be murdered in a manner, which would look like a suicide and that Suresh Soni, financier is also with him. Due to continuous threats of the applicant and the SHO Police station Kabrai, on 05.09.2020 the deceased sent a complaint to the Chief Minister, U.P. Government and that complaint was also made viral on face-book and on other means of social media. Due to these reasons, the applicant became more hostile and he started getting the deceased threatened from his subordinate police officials that he would be implicated in false cases and they would get him killed. On 07.09.2020 at 12:00 noon and on 08.09.2020 at 10:00 AM, the deceased made his video viral saying that it may be possible that he would not be alive by tomorrow (next day), as the applicant has threatened to kill him and he is making demand of Rs. 6 lacs per month from him and he is unable to pay the same. As this message has gone viral, the deceased started getting more threats. On 08.09.2020 the deceased has announced that on 09.09.2020 at 11:00 AM he would organize a press conference at 'R.J.S. Granite' and would show each and every evidence of corruption being done by the applicant. After that the applicant, co-accused Devendra Shukla, Station Officer P.S. Kabrai and some of their subordinate police officials and co-accused Suresh Soni and Brahmdutt hatched a conspiracy and made an attempt to get the deceased killed by firing. On 08.09.2020 at 2:30 PM, the deceased was found lying in injured condition in his car no. UP95-N-2900 on Karbai-Banda road. On the basis of information from some passers-by, the deceased was sent to government hospital, Mahoba. After receiving information, the informant also reached there. Due to serious condition of the deceased, he was referred to Kanpur and there doctors have told that deceased has sustained a bullet at his neck and he is on ventilator. It was also alleged that due to the acts and conduct of the applicant and his subordinate police officials and said Suresh Soni and Brahmdutt, an atmosphere of fear has prevailed in the area.
4. The first information report was lodged on 11.09.2020 at 19:49 hours, under Sections 387, 307, 120-B IPC and Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act at police station Kabrai, district Mahoba. Initially investigation was taken by Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, Dy. S.P.. On 13.09.2020 the deceased succumbed to injuries and thus, section 302 IPC added. On 14.09.2020 a Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted for investigation of this case. During investigation, on the basis of Ballistic report dated 24.09.2020, the Investigating Officer has converted the case from Sections 302/307 IPC to Section 306 IPC along with sections 387/120-B/504/506 IPC and Section 7/13 of P.C. Act. It appears that during investigation, police concluded that due to the continuous demand of money and the threats extended by the applicant and co-accused persons, deceased has committed suicide by firing bullet at himself.
5. As per postmortem report, the cause of death of deceased is shock and septicaemia due to firearm injury and the deceased has sustained following ante-mortem injuries:-
"(i) L.W. size about 0.5 x 0.5 cm over 2.0 cm below C-7 cervical bone deep. c̅ yellowish discharge blackening around the margins converted.
(ii) L.W. size about 3.0 x 2.0 cm over 2.5 cm above medial end of rt. Clavicle c̅ yellowish discharge.
(iii) Injury no. 1 is communicating to injury No 2 between
-C7 and TI vertebra.
-Muscle and trachea and esophagus lacerated laterally."
6. Sri Vinay Saran learned Senior Advocate appearing for the applicant-accused submitted that the applicant-accused is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in this case. Applicant is an officer of Indian Police Service, having good service record. At the time of incident applicant was posted as Superintendent of Police, Mahoba and he has never demanded any bribe or money from deceased and there is no evidence that deceased has ever paid any amount or bribe to the applicant. In fact the applicant has nothing to do with the controversy relating to deceased Indrakant Tripathi (hereinafter referred to 'the deceased'), who died under mysterious circumstances. Either the deceased has committed suicide or he was done to death by some miscreant and that applicant was got involved into controversy much after the deceased has sustained firearm injury. There is no eye witness of the alleged incident. The deceased was found in injured condition in his Audi car on the highway. The pistol of deceased was deposited by the informant in the police station on 19.09.2020, whereas the incident took place on 08.09.2020. There was no prompt first information report. There is absolutely no evidence to bring the applicant within the purview of offence defined under section 300 IPC and similarly there is no evidence that applicant has abetted the deceased to commit suicide. There is no material on record to show that any criminal conspiracy was hatched so as to attract Section 120-B IPC. It was submitted that the deceased was found involved in a case of Gambling Act vide crime no. 210 of 2020 and accordingly a notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. was issued to him by the Investigating Officer on 30.08.2020. As the deceased was a man of status having good political patronage, he felt offended by the said notice and due to that reason he started making false allegations of demand of illicit money against the applicant. The deceased was a well connected person having connection high ups and one of his brother was working in Secretariat and another brother was a practising lawyer. The deceased has started making frivolous complaints against the applicant and he has circulated a fake story that applicant was demanding Rs. 6 lacs from him as extortion to allow him to run his business and that he has already paid Rs. 6 lacs in past twice. No specific details like date, place or mode of alleged payments were disclosed.
7. It is further submitted that the informant has provided a pen drive to the Investigating Officer having alleged video circulated by deceased on social media without any detail of IP address and date of downloading etc. The said pen-drive was shown 'edited'. The authenticity of the said pen drive is wholly doubtful. There is no FSL report regarding genesis of the said pen drive and no certificate under section 65-B of Evidence Act was brought on record. In his press conference dated 07.09.2020 the applicant has denied the allegations made against him. It was stated that the deceased was found in injured condition on 08.09.2020 and he was admitted at Regency Hospital, Kanpur but at that time no first information report was lodged. The first information report was registered after 3 days on 11.09.2020 at 19:40 hours. No statement / dying declaration of deceased was recorded during that period in the hospital. The Government has constituted a SIT to investigate the case. The site-plan of the spot goes to show that the alleged vehicle, in which alleged incident took place, was not at the spot and no tyre marks or blood-stain marks etc. were discovered at the spot. The statements of Babbu, Rajju, Purushottam Soni and Bablu @ Bal Krishore Dwivedi recorded under section 161 Cr.P.C. are based on hearsay assertion. The vehicle in which deceased was found in injured condition, was taken into possession and inspected with long delay on 14.09.2020 at police station Kabrai, Mahoba. The pistol of deceased along with three cartridges was provided by the brother of deceased to the Investigating Officer on 19.09.2020. The long delay in seizing car and pistol of deceased further raises serious doubt about the prosecution version. Further, as per ballistic report the pistol of deceased has matched with the cartridges allegedly found inside the car but it did not match with the distorted bullet originally recovered from the vehicle of the deceased. On the basis of report of ballistic expert, the Investigating Officer has converted the present case from section 307, 302 IPC to section 306 IPC, along with sections 387, 120-B, 504, 506 IPC. During investigation, the Investigating Officer has seized a number of mobile phones but none of the subscriber of those phones was found near the alleged spot of incident. After the incident, the control room of district Mahoba was not given any information regarding the incident.
8. It is further submitted that attending facts of the matter show that genesis of the present case was suppressed by the prosecution and as stated above the first information report was registered after 3 days and pistol and car of deceased were also seized with long and undue delay. On 01.10.2020 the Investigating Officer has recorded supplementary statement of first informant, who has developed the story. Prior to the incident in question, it was only Brejesh Shukla, who has met with the deceased at about 08:00-08.30 PM and in that meeting deceased has not uttered a single word about any apprehension to his life or any threat or danger. Referring to statement of Vinod Kumar, who was posted on telephone duty at S.P. residence and constable Mukesh Kumar, who was posted as gunner of S.P., Mohaba as well as statements of security guards posted at the residence of applicant, it was submitted that they have not stated any such fact that deceased has come at the residence or office of the applicant.
9. Learned Senior counsel further pointed out that on 11.10.2020 the Investigating Officer has recorded statements of Deependra Singh (Muneem of the deceased) and he has developed a false story that the deceased has told him that applicant is making illicit demand of money. As per prosecution version deceased has allegedly made two videos, one on 07.09.2020 and another on 08.09.2020 and published the same on face-book and other social media but the said allegations are wholly false. There is no credible evidence to prove that deceased has ever met with applicant. Referring to statement of Satyam Singh, Arjun Singh and other witnesses, it was stated that it were Balkrishna @ Babllu Maharajm, Mukesh Gurudev, Asharam and Purushottam, who have removed the licenced pistol of deceased and his other belongings and they have threatened Satyam Singh and Arjun Singh for not disclosing about the removal of pistol and other articles. Co-accused Devendra Shukla, the then SHO, has denied the allegations of extortion. In their supplementary statements alleged witnesses Arjun Singh and his son Satyam Singh have stated that they have given pistol, key and mobile phone of deceased to Asharam at the behest of Balkrishna @ Ballu Maharaj and that Ballu Maharaj has threatened them not to disclose it to anybody.
10. Learned senior advocate submitted that the prosecution story is suspicious and unsolved mystery and that there is no eye witness of alleged incident. The applicant has been falsely implicated merely because the police have issued a notice under section 160 Cr.P.C. to the deceased in a gambling case. The applicant is in police service since the year 2014 and he has never been involved in any such type of incident. Though the allegations of demand of money / extortion are wholly false but for the sake of arguments, even those allegations would not constitute an offence of abetment of suicide. Referring to provisions of section 107/306 IPC, it was submitted that no prima facie case under section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant.
11. It is further submitted that merely because after registration of this case, the applicant has gone missing, it cannot be considered as an adverse factor against the applicant. After incident it was COVID-19 pandemic period. Similarly, in the year 2021 there was impact of COVID-19 pandemic for sufficient long period and thus, non-appearance of applicant cannot be considered as an adverse factor. In the same way merely because some petitions were filed on behalf of the applicant in the High Court, no adverse inference can be drawn against him. Applicant has a right to resort appropriate legal remedy available under law and thus, on that ground no adverse inference must be drawn against him. It is further submitted that the prosecution has relied upon transfer of money from bank account of applicant to his father and other family members. That bank account is a salary account of the applicant and there is absolutely nothing to show that any illicit money was transferred by the applicant to his family members. Merely because the applicant has transferred large amount collected by his salary to his family members, it cannot be considered an adverse factor against the applicant.
12. It is further submitted that applicant has performed his duty as police officer in a fair and impartial manner. Co-accused Suresh Soni and Brahmadatt have already been granted bail by this Court. Similarly, co-accused Devendra Shukla, who was SHO of police station Kabrai, and constable Arun Kumar have also been granted bail by this court. It was stated that the applicant is in jail since 15.10.2022 and that even the charges have not been framed against the applicant so far and thus, trial of the case is yet to commence. The applicant cannot be kept confined in jail without trial. The applicant has no previous criminal antecedents and that in view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, applicant deserves to be released on bail. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel has placed reliance upon the case of In Re: (Suo Moto) v. State of U.P., [PIL No. 564 of 2020], Nipun Aneja & Ors. v. State of U.P., 2024 INSC 767 and Balbir Singh Dhol v. State of Punjab, 2020 0 Supreme(P&H) 894.
13. Per contra, Sri Manish Goyal, learned Additional Advocate General as well as Sri I.K. Chaturvedi, learned senior counsel for the informant, have opposed the bail application. It was submitted that deceased was partner in 'R.J.S. Crusher' and he was also having business by the name of 'Maa Kali Associates' and 'I.P. Traders' . The applicant, who was posted as S.P., Mahoba, had demanded Rs. 6 lacs per month from the deceased for running of his business. In fact earlier the deceased has paid Rs. 6 lacs per month to the applicant but as his business was not running properly, he was not in a position to fulfil the illegal demand of applicant-accused. Due to that reason applicant has started harassing and torturing the deceased in order to extort money from him. The deceased has committed suicide due to continuous torture and harassment meted out at behest of the applicant. The allegation that applicant was implicated in this case on the ground that police have issued a notice to the deceased in a gambling case, is wholly false. In fact the deceased was not named in the first information report of that case and that when the deceased did not yield to the illicit demand of applicant, he was falsely implicated in the said gambling case at instance of the applicant. In this connection, learned A.A.G. has referred statement of SI Jitender Singh, who was investigating that case. He has stated that deceased was not named in that case and that co-accused Devendra Shukla SHO PS Kabrai has pressurised him to involve the deceased in that case as it was desired by the 'Kaptan Sahab' (applicant). Statements of other witnesses and contents of audio clip were also referred. As the deceased was disturbed due to harassment, on 03.09.2020 he has personally contacted the applicant-accused and expressed his inability to fulfil his illegal demand but applicant was not satisfied and he has threatened the deceased. Thereafter, the deceased has sent a complaint dated 05.09.2020 to the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh and prepared a video clip and the same was published on social media. On 08.09.2020 deceased has announced that he would convene a press conference on 09.09.2020 at 11.00 AM at R.J.S. Grenite but on 08.09.2020 at 02:30 PM he was found in injured condition in his vehicle on Kabrai-Banda road. Referring to facts of the matter, it was submitted that the facts of the matter and evidence collected during investigation clearly show that applicant has harassed and tortured the deceased to the extent that he has been left with no option but to commit suicide. As after the incident deceased was admitted in the hospital and his condition was serious thus, no adverse inference can be drawn on the ground of delay in lodging of the first information report.
14. It is further submitted that applicant did not co-operate during investigation and non-bailable warrants were issued against him. Thereafter, process under section 82 Cr.P.C. was issued against him but the applicant did not appear. A case under section 174-A IPC was also registered against him and a reward of Rs. 25,000/- was announced on his arrest and later the amount of reward was enhanced to Rs. 1,00,000/-. After that process under section 83 Cr.P.C. was also issued against the applicant on 23.06.2021 and ultimately charge-sheet dated 18.03.2022 was submitted against the applicant as absconder. It was pointed out that applicant was also an accused in case crime No. 505 of 2020, under section 384 IPC and section 7/13 of P.C. Act, police station Kotwali Mahoba and in that matter he has filed a writ petition before this court for quashing of the first information report and that petition was dismissed as not pressed vide order dated 03.11.2020. The applicant has filed an anticipatory bail application in the said case, which was rejected vide order dated 03.12.2020. The first information report of the present case was also challenged by the applicant before this Court by filing a writ petition No. 11301 of 2020, which was dismissed vide order dated 02.11.2020. Similarly, anticipatory bail application of applicant in this case was rejected by order dated 16.12.2020. It was submitted that the applicant has got filed one habeas corpus writ petition No. 353 of 2021 through one Dr. Mukut Nath Verma, advocate and in that petition petitioner has stated that on 15.11.2020 applicant has made a whats-app call to him that he would be coming to meet him on 27.11.2020 but he did not come. Said Mukut Nath Verma has again filed a criminal misc. writ petition No. 6583 of 2021 before this Court and that petition was dismissed with costs of Rs. 5 lacs. Referring to these facts, it was submitted that applicant was well aware of first information report of this case and subsequent investigation but despite that he absconded for sufficient long period. The applicant has also made a call to his wife on 27.05.2021. Referring to aforesaid facts, it was submitted that the reasons given by applicant for his absconding are too vague to believe. It was submitted that the applicant is named in the first information report and ample evidence has been collected against him. In his supplementary statement dated 01.10.2020 the informant has inter-alia stated that he has given a pen drive of deceased relating to present case. On 09.10.2020 the Investigating Officer has got information that earlier applicant has held a press conference, in which deceased was referred as a gambler but there was no first information report against the deceased under Gambling Act. The Investigating Officer SI Jitendra Singh, who was investigating the case crime No. 210 of 2020, under sections 332, 353 IPC and Section 13 Gambling Act, police station Kabrai, was also examined in this case by the Investigating Officer. Said S.I. Jitendra Singh has stated that co-accused Devendra Shukla, SHO Kabrai, was pressurizing him to introduce the name of deceased in the aforesaid case as it was desired by the applicant. On 10.10.2020 constable Vinod Kumar, who was on telephone duty at the official accommodation of applicant, was interrogated and he has stated that co-accused SHO Devendra Shukla and constable Arun Yadav used to meet the applicant frequently. Statement of Dipendra Singh, who was Muneem of deceased, was referred and in his statement dated 11.10.2020 he has inter-alia stated that deceased used to give Rs. six lacs per month to the applicant as 'suvidha shulk' and when deceased has denied to pay the said amount in August 2020, accused persons, including applicant, have started pressurizing the deceased. Statement of Vijay Kumar Tiwari (brother of deceased) and Smt. Ranjana Tripathi (wife of deceased) were also referred and they have also made specific allegations against the applicant-accused.
15. Referring to the complaint sent by the deceased to the Chief Minister, U.P. and the statements of witnesses, it was stated that continuous illicit demand of money and harassment of deceased at the instance of applicant amounts to abetment of suicide and due to that abetment deceased has committed suicide.
16. Learned A.A.G. has also referred transactions of money transfer made by applicant with his family members. It was pointed out that applicant has transferred huge amount to the tune of Rs. 17, 56,000/- to his family members in the month of November and December, 2020 and there were some suspicious entries in the bank account of mother of applicant, who is a housewife. Statements of one Keshav Prasad Savita and his wife Sudha Kumari were also referred and they have inter-alia stated that police have demanded two lacs from contractors through co-accused constable Arun Kumar and these witnesses were also called by applicant and were asked to pay Rs. 8 lacs to him in order to carry out their business and that due to non-payment of the said bribe, they were falsely implicated in extortion case.
17. Regarding the contention of the counsel of applicant that the pen-drive handed over to the investigating officer was shown 'modified', learned AAG has referred an article of Judge of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Uzbekistan, wherein it has been mentioned that studies have shown that common metadata fields, such as 'last modified' dates, can be misunderstood or taken out of context. Learned AAG has also referred the case of State of Karnataka V T. Naseer @ Nasir @ Thandiantavida Naseer @ Umarhazi @ Hazi & Ors., 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 965, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court has held that certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act can be produced at any stage if the trial is not over.
18. It was further submitted that applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused Devendra Shukla and Arun Kumar, who have been granted bail. Similarly, applicant cannot claim parity with co-accused Suresh Soni and Brahmdatt as their role was quite different and they were stated to be businessmen and the allegation against them was that they were in connivance with the applicant. So far co-accused Devendra Shukla and constable Arun Kumar are concerned, they were granted bail mainly on the basis that they have already undergone 1/3rd sentence prescribed for the offences in question and relying upon the case of Re-Inhuman Conditions in 1382 Prisoners (Writ petition (Civil) No. 406/2013). In the instant matter, no such parity is made out. Further, the role of applicant is on different footing and same is more grievous and his conduct regarding long absconding also distinguished his case and thus, applicant cannot claim parity with the co-accused persons, who have been granted bail. Learned AAG has referred facts of the matter and statements of witnesses, conduct of applicant and submitted that applicant-accused is not entitled for bail.
19. I have considered rival submissions and perused record.
20. So far the position of law on the point of bail is concerned, a reference may be made to the case of State through C.B.I vs. Amaramani Tripathi- [(2005) 8 SCC 21], wherein the Apex Court held that a Court granting bail to an accused, must apply its mind and go into the merits and evidence on record and determine whether a prima-facie case was established against the accused. It was held that the seriousness and gravity of the crime was also a relevant consideration. The Hon'ble Apex Court has, in a catena of judgments, outlined the considerations on the basis of which discretion under Section 439 CrPC has to be exercised while granting bail. The grant of bail requires the consideration of various factors which ultimately depends upon the specific facts and circumstances of the case before the Court. There is no strait jacket formula which can ever be prescribed as to what the relevant factors could be. However, certain important factors that are always considered, inter-alia, relate to prima facie involvement of the accused, nature and gravity of the charge, severity of the punishment, and the character, position and standing of the accused. It is also to be kept in view that at the stage of granting bail, the Court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence in the case. Such an exercise may be undertaken at the stage of trial. In case of Kalyan Chandra Sarkar V Rajesh Ranjan alias Pappu Yadav & Anr. [(2004) 7 SCC 528], the Court held that although it is established that a Court considering a bail application cannot undertake a detailed examination of the evidence and make an elaborate discussion on the merits of the case, the Court is required to indicate the prima facie reasons justifying the grant of bail.
21. In case of Nipun Aneja (supra), the Apex Court has discussed the law relating to offence prescribed under section 306 IPC. After referring to its earlier decisions, the Apex Court held:
''21 The ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 of the IPC (abetment of suicide) would stand fulfilled if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. Further, as the extreme action of committing suicide is also on account of great disturbance to the psychological imbalance of the deceased such incitement can be divided into two broad categories. First, where the deceased is having sentimental ties or physical relations with the accused and the second category would be where the deceased is having relations with the accused in his or her official capacity. In the case of former category sometimes a normal quarrel or the hot exchange of words may result into immediate psychological imbalance, consequently creating a situation of depression, loss of charm in life and if the person is unable to control sentiments of expectations, it may give temptations to the person to commit suicide, e.g., when there is relation of husband and wife, mother and son, brother and sister, sister and sister and other relations of such type, where sentimental tie is by blood or due to physical relations. In the case of second category the tie is on account of official relations, where the expectations would be to discharge the obligations as provided for such duty in law and to receive the considerations as provided in law. In normal circumstances, relationships by sentimental tie cannot be equated with the official relationship. The reason being different nature of conduct to maintain that relationship. The former category leaves more expectations, whereas in the latter category, by and large, the expectations and obligations are prescribed by law, rules, policies and regulations.
22 The test that the Court should adopt in this type of cases is to make an endeavour to ascertain on the basis of the materials on record whether there is anything to indicate even prima facie that the accused intended the consequences of the act, i.e., suicide. Over a period of time, the trend of the courts is that such intention can be read into or gathered only after a full- fledged trial. The problem is that the courts just look into the factum of suicide and nothing more. We believe that such understanding on the part of the courts is wrong. It all depends on the nature of the offence & accusation. For example, whether the accused had the common intention under Section 34 of the IPC could be gathered only after a full-fledged trial on the basis of the depositions of the witnesses as regards the genesis of the occurrence, the manner of assault, the weapon used, the role played by the accused etc. However, in cases of abetment of suicide by and large the facts make things clear more particularly from the nature of the allegations itself. The Courts should know how to apply the correct principles of law governing abetment of suicide to the facts on record. It is the inability on the part of the courts to understand and apply the correct principles of law to the cases of abetment of suicide, which leads to unnecessary prosecutions.''
22. In the instant case as per prosecution version, the deceased was partner in 'R.J.S. Crusher' and he was also associated with 'Maa Kali Associates' and 'I.P. Traders', having the licence of sale and purchase of explosive substance and earlier he was paying rupees six lacs per month to the applicant. When the deceased has expressed his inability to pay any further amount by saying that he is no more doing the business of explosive substances, he was continuously harassed and threatened by the applicant and by his subordinate police officials in relation to demand of rupees six lacs per month. On 05.09.2020 the deceased has sent a letter to the Chief Minister, U.P. Government and that the complaint was also made viral on face-book and thereafter the applicant has increased harassment of deceased through co-accused Devendra Shukla (SHO) and other co-accused persons. On 07.09.2020, the deceased has posted a video saying that it may be possible that he would not be alive by tomorrow, as the applicant is threatening to kill him and he was demanding Rs. 6 lacs per month from him. On 08.09.2020 the deceased has told that he would organize a press conference on 09.09.2020 to show the evidence of corruption being done by the applicant and his subordinate police officials and other co-accused persons. On the same day i.e. 08.09.2020 at 2:30 PM, the deceased was found in injured condition in his car and he was having bullet injuries. The prosecution version finds support from the complaint sent by the deceased to the Chief Minister before the incident, post published by him on social media as well as statements of various witnesses, including that of Dipendra Singh. On the other hand there are some facts like that there was delay in lodging of the first information report and in seizure of the weapon of offence and the vehicle of deceased. It was shown that after incident the applicant has absconded for long period, however now applicant is in custody since 15.10.2022 and the charges have not been framed so far. At this stage it would not be proper to express any opinion on the merits or on the point whether the mischief attributed to the applicant amounts to abetment of suicide, as the evidence is yet to be led and examined by the trial court.
23. Considering submissions of learned counsel for the parties, nature of accusations and cumulative effects of attending facts and circumstances of the matter, without expressing any opinion on merits, no case for grant of bail is made out at this stage.
24. The bail application of applicant Manilal Patidar is hereby rejected.
25. Keeping in view the period of detention of applicant, the Trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and to conclude the same as early as possible.
Order Date :- 28.04.2025
Anand
