Sitarunnisha vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 7236 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Sitarunnisha vs State Of U.P. And Another on 26 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:89582
 
Court No. - 80
 

 
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 685 of 2025
 

 
Appellant :- Sitarunnisha
 
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And Another
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Chanchal Kumar Singh,Satish Chandra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.,Shahroze Khan
 

 
Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the respondent no.2, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act has been preferred by the appellant - Sitarunnisha with the prayer to set aside the bail rejection order dated 7.12.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/ Special Sessions Judge (SC/ST Act), Siddharth Nagar in Bail Application No. 2054 of 2024 arising out of Case Crime No. 85 of 2024 under Sections 108 BNS & Section 3(2)(V) SC/ST Act, Police Station - Chilihiya, District- Siddharth Nagar.

3. The deceased/ daughter of the informant committed suicide in the house of the present appellant by hanging herself. FIR was lodged and investigation started. Now the charge sheet in this matter has been submitted. The prosecution story as unfolded in the FIR is that the deceased having some affairs with Nawab Ali, son of the present appellant who came back from Mumbai after about 3 years and in the morning at about 4.00 am the deceased reached at the house of Nawab Ali and she was humiliated there by all the family members of the said Nawab Ali and he himself and feeling aggrieved and depressed with the conduct of the accused persons the young girl committed suicide in the room of Wajid Ali, son of the present appellant by hanging herself.

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. She has not committed the present offence. Alleged offences are not attracted against her. Essential ingredients to establish an offence under SC/ST Act are also missing in this case.

5. It is further submitted that the essential elements to constitute the offence under Section 108 BNS (Section 306 I.P.C. ) are completely missing in this matter. As a matter of of fact the deceased was having affair with Nawab, son of the present appellant and she reached at about 4.00 am at the house of Nawab. It is further submitted that the informant in his statement under Section 180 BNSS has stated that she was only scolded by the present appellant and her family members, nothing more has been averred by the informant. In his statement the other witness Ram Naresh has only found this fact that the dead body was found in the house of the appellant hanging in a closed room. It is also submitted that there was no reason for the deceased to commit suicide after entering into the house of the present appellant. The appellant herself is a lady and she had absolutely no role if there was some relations between the deceased and Nawab, son of the present appellant. It is also submitted that since the said Nawab returned his home after three years from Mumbai nothing has been alleged in the FIR or in the statement made by the prosecution witnesses that during this period of three years she was ever instigated or provoked in any way to commit suicide. The trial Court while passing the impugned order did not take into account the facts and evidence available on record in right perspective and erred in passing the same. Appellant is in jail since 12.10.2024. It is lastly submitted that the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court.

6. On the other hand, learned AGA and learned counsel for the respondent no.2 opposing the prayer for bail submitted that the appellant committed the present offence having knowledge that the victim belonged to scheduled caste community. There is no infirmity or illegality in the impugned order dated 7.12.2024

7. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully.

8. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Apex Court held 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. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualise the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC thus criminalises sustained incitement for suicide.

9. In M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC.

10. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned judgment.

11. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed.

12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside.

13. Let the above named appellant involved in the aforesaid crime be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two heavy sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified.

(i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial.

(ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness.

(iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence is exempted.

(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which she is suspected.

(v) The appellant 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 her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.

14. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court.

Order Date :- 26.5.2025

Fhd