Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Sahbaaz vs State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. ... on 14 November, 2025
Author: Saurabh Lavania
Bench: Saurabh Lavania
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:72921
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
LUCKNOW
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 2665 of 2025
Mohd. Sahbaaz
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s)
:
Kuldeep Pandey, Dileep Kumar Tiwari
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 13
HON'BLE SAURABH LAVANIA, J.
1. Rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.
2. As per Office report dated 07.11.2025, the service of notice upon opposite party No. 2 is sufficient. Today, when the case called out, no one appeared on behalf of opposite party No. 2 to oppose the present bail appeal. In this background of the case, this Court proceeded to decide the appeal on merits.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. By means of instant appeal under Section 14-A (2) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act, 1989 the appellant has challenged the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh, in Bail Application No. 2448 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2)(A) BNS and Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Raniganj, District-Paratapgarh.
5. While pressing the present appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submits that in this case the daughter of the informant aged about 21 years was working in Multispeciality Hospital, Durgaganj for a period of four years. Appellant was also working there. There was love affair between both of them and due to dispute the daughter of the informant consumed poison. When this fact came into the knowledge of co-accused Dr. Amit Kumar Pandey, who was Manager of the hospital, her treatment was started but she could not be saved and she died. Thereafter, the information was given to her family on which they became annoyed and lodged the F.I.R against the present appellant and some other co-accused persons under sections 70(1), 103(1), 3(5) BNSS Act but after investigation the charge sheet was filed under section 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2A) BNSS Act and under section 3(2)(5) SC/ST Act, Police Station- Raniganj, District- Pratapgarh.
6. It is further submitted that there is allegation of rape against the appellant have no force. He also submits that during postmortem no external or internal injury was found on the body of the deceased and cause of death could not be ascertained and viscera was preserved for medical analysis.
7. It is next submitted that co-accused namely Amit Kmar Pandey @ Dheeraj and Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Monu, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order(s) dated 23.06.2025 and 14.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1483 of 2025 and 1581 of 2025.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant also stated that for the purposes of offence under Section 306 IPC, the prosecution has to allege and prove that the deceased was abetted/instigated by the accused immediately before committing suicide. Merely 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, implication or conviction in terms of Section 306 IPC is not sustainable. 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. This aspect is missing in this case. In this regard, learned counsel for the revisionist placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab reported in (2020) 10 SCC 200; Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan and Another reported in (2021) SCC Online SC 873 and Prabhat Kumar Mishra Alias Prabhat Mishra vs. State of U.P. and another reported in (2024) 3 SCC 665.
9. Thus, taking note of aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case as also that the appellant is in incarceration since 30.03.2025, indulgence of this Court is required in the matter and the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed.
10. Learned A.G.A. vehemently opposed the prayer of the appellant, however, he could not dispute the above contentions made by the appellant's counsel.
11. Considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A., and gone through the contents of the appeal, impugned order, F.I.R., medical report as well as other relevant documents including the statement(s) recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation and also that the co-accused namely Amit Kmar Pandey @ Dheeraj and Sunil Kumar Yadav @ Monu, have already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order(s) dated 23.06.2025 and 14.07.2025 passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. 1483 of 2025 and 1581 of 2025.
12. Upon due consideration of above facts and circumstances including the statement(s) of the victim and contents of the FIR as also keeping in view the fact that the trial of the case is not likely to be concluded in near future, this Court is of the view that the appeal has substance and it is accordingly, allowed.
13. The the impugned order dated 02.07.2025 passed by the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Pratapgarh, in Bail Application No. 2448 of 2025, arising out of Case Crime No. 80 of 2025, under Sections 64(1), 108, 238, 61(2)(A) BNS and Sections 3(2)(V) of SC/ST Act, P.S.-Raniganj, District-Paratapgarh, is hereby set aside.
14. Let appellant-Mohd. Sahbaaz be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following additional conditions :-
(i) The appellant will cooperate with the prosecution during trial.
(ii) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during trial.
(iii) The appellant will not pressurize/intimidate the prosecution witness(es).
(iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence.
(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 him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence.
(vi) The appellant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through counsel.
(vii) The appellant will not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court.
(viii) The appellant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
15. As this order relates to enlargement of the appellant on bail, it is clarified that observations made in this order shall have no bearing on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by any observation made in this order.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.)
November 14, 2025
Vinay/-
