Chattisgarh High Court

Smt. Prabha Sahu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 August, 2021

                                                                                                           NAFR
                   HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
                                 MCRCA No. 976 of 2021
     • Smt. Prabha Sahu, Wd/o Late Rupendra Kumar, Aged About 41 Years R/o
       Shyama Prasad Mukherjee Ward, Sai Colony, Bhatapara, Police Station
       Bhatapara (City), District Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara (C.G.)
                                                                                                ---- Applicant
                                                    Versus
     • State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station Bhatapara (City), District- Baloda
       Bazar- Bhatapara(C.G.), District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh
                                                                                             ---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant : Shri Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, Senior Advocate with Shri Virendra Verma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri BP Banjare, Dy GA

MCRCA No. 971 of 2021 • Jitendra Kumar Sharma, S/o Late Vinod Sharma Aged About 34 Years R/o Nayapara Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station And Tahsil Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Civil And Revenue District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh

---- Applicant Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bhatapara (City), District Baloda Bazar - Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant                                           : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Advocate
 For Respondent/State                                   : Shri BL Sahu, PL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MCRCA No. 986 of 2021 • Smt. Anjana Gupta, W/o Shri Santosh Gupta, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Subhash Ward, Bhatapara, Police Station - Bhatapara City, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

---- Applicant Versus • State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bhatapara (City), District -

Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)

---- Respondent

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Applicant                                           : Shri Vaibhav A Goverdhan, Advocate
 For Respondent/State                                   : Shri BP Banjare, Dy GA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mcrca 986, 971 & 976 of 2021

Hon'ble Shri Justice Parth Prateem Sahu Order on Board (Proceeding through Video Conferencing)

19.08.2021

1. As above three bail applications arise out of same Crime number,

they are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.

2. Applicants in above three bail applications have sought anticipatory

bail under Section 438 of CrPC as they apprehend their arrest in

connection with Crime No. 300 of 2021 registered at Police Station

Bhatapara City, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara Chhattisgarh for

commission of offenses punishable under Sections 306, 34 of IPC and

3/4 of Chhattisgarh Riniyonka Sanrakshan Adhiniyam, 1937.

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 09.04.2021, Smt

Radhika Dubey committed suicide by hanging. Merg ws reported on the

same day at about 3.15 pm by Adil Hospital. During the course of merg

enquiry, son of deceased handed over one suicidal note on 11.05.2021.

Written complaint was lodged by husband and son of deceased on

26.07.2021, making allegations against applicants that they were

pressurizing the deceased for return of loan amount, extended by them

to her and also threatening her that if loan amount is not returned,

deceased would be dragged to Court. Based on written complaint,

aforementioned crime was registered against applicant.

4. Applicants, apprehending their arrest, filed these anticipatory bail

applications after rejection of their applications by the Court below.

Mcrca 986, 971 & 976 of 2021

5. Shri Pramod Kumar Verma, learned Senior Advocate for applicant-

Smt Prabha Sahu would submit that as per allegations levelled against

her, she extended hand loan of Rs.2 lakhs to deceased. Applicant also

has taken some blank cheques and signature on some blank stamp

papers. As per information supplied to learned counsel, no such

document has been seized by Police. He submits that even as per

allegations, applicant has not taken any illegal means for recovery of

loan amount, but has only stated that she will drag the deceased to

Court. As it is the applicant who extended loan to deceased, in default

of payment, she stated that she will take legal proceedings. He submits

that in the contents of written complaint, no ingredient for commission of

offence under Section 306 IPC is present. No allegation of abatement or

instigation to deceased to take such a step of committing suicide.

Asking for return of loan advanced to deceased would not fall within the

purview of instigation. Learned Senior Advocate in support of his

submission, placed reliance of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M

Arjunan Vs the State Rep. By its Inspector of Police, reported in 2019

AIR SCW 43. Other offences alleged are bailable.

6. Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for applicant- Jitendra

Kumar Sharma would submit that he is adopting the submissions made

by learned Senior Counsel. He submits that applicant extended hand

loan of Rs.4 lakhs to deceased. He further submits that no suicidal note

was recovered immediately after the incident from the spot. Complaint

was lodged with an inordinate delay, only on 26.07.2021.

7. Shri Vaibhav A Goverdha, learned counsel for applicant- Smt

Anjana Gupta would submit that he is also adopting the submissions of Mcrca 986, 971 & 976 of 2021

learned Senior counsel and relied upon judgment passed in the matter of

Prakashchand Vs State of MP reported in 2007 (1) CGLJ 9 (MP). He

submits that allegedly applicant extended hand loan of Rs.2,75,000/- to

deceased.

8. On the other hand, Shri BP Banjare, learned counsel for the State

opposing the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant, submits

that in written complaint, there is allegation of pressurizing deceased for

refund of amount and also that they have taken blank cheques and

signatures on stamp papers of deceased. FIR was registered based on

written complaint of husband and son of deceased. However, he submits

that during the course of investigation, Police seized one suicidal note

presented by son of deceased on 11.05.2021. Learned State counsel

read over the suicidal note and upon asking, he submits that name of

present applicants is not mentioned in suicidal note of harassing and

pressurizing the deceased in any manner. Name of one Amit Sharma

and Ganesh Dhruv, is there in note, mentioning that deceased has taken

loan from those persons.

9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

10. Taking into consideration nature of allegations levelled against

present applicants; contents of suicidal note, which was handed over by

son of deceased to Police on 11.05.2021, wherein no allegation is made

against applicants herein; further, even in written complaint allegations

levelled against applicants are that they were demanding loan amount

handed over by them and further stating that in default, deceased will be Mcrca 986, 971 & 976 of 2021

dragged to Court, without commenting anything on merits of the case, I

am inclined to enlarge the applicants on anticipatory bail.

11. Accordingly, the applications are allowed and it is directed that in the

event of arrest of applicants in connection with the crime in question,

they shall be released on anticipatory bail by the Officer arresting them

on their executing a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/- (Rupees

twenty-five thousand) each with one surety in the like sum to the

satisfaction of the concerned Arresting Officer. The applicants shall also

abide by the following conditions:

a) That the applicants shall make themselves available for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as and when required;

b) That the applicants 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 them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer;