Ayubbhai Ismailbhai Momin vs State Of Gujarat
2023 Latest Caselaw 2986 Guj

      R/CR.MA/23944/2022                                ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 23944 of 2022

==========================================================
                           AYUBBHAI ISMAILBHAI MOMIN
                                     Versus
                               STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
DHANESH R PATEL(8226) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR.DHAWAN JAYSWAL APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRZAR S. DESAI

                                Date : 18/04/2023

                                 ORAL ORDER

[1] By way of the present application under

Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973,

the applicants accused are seeking anticipatory bail

in connection with the FIR being

C.R.No.11195009220507 of 2022 registered with Chhapi

Police Station, Dist. Banaskantha for the offences

punishable under Sections 306, 506(2), 323, 342 and

114 of the Indian Penal Code.

[2] Learned advocate Mr.Bhadrish Raju, for

Mr.Dhanesh Patel, learned advocate for the applicants

made it clear at the outset that applicant no.2 has

R/CR.MA/23944/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

already been arrested, therefore, this application has

become infructous qua applicant no.2, and he is

pressing this application only in respect of applicants

no.1 and 3.

[3] As per the FIR, one Chandanji Pratapji

Rajput has stated that he has two son and two

daughter. Rameshji was elder son and another son

viz. Laxmanji. On 03.11.2022, at around 7.30 in the

evening, Ramesh left his house with a bag and said

said that he will return back soon. Thereafter, at

around 9.30 p.m. Laxmanj called Rameshji and asked

his whereabouts, he said that he was taking dinner

at highway Hotel. Thereafter, on the next day i.e. on

04.11.2022 at around 8.00 in the morning, the

brother of the complainant came to his residence and

told that his son Rameshji is died on the Railway

track and pieces of the dead body is there.

Therefore, they went to the scene, and found a

suicide note from the bag of Ramesh, wherein he has

specifically stated that he was in love with the

daughter of the present applicant no.1, and wanted

R/CR.MA/23944/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

to marry her and both of them ran away together

and got married. However, on 01.11.2022, both were

caught, and locked in a Dabha, and they were

threatened to kill. Both were beaten and separated.

In the suicide note it was also stated that even his

family members are not supporting him, and because

of torture of all these, he is committing suicide. In

the suicide note, he has stated that he was severely

beaten. On the basis of the aforesaid suicide note, a

complaint was registered against the present

applicants and other persons.

[4] Learned advocate Mr.Bhadrish Raju

submitted that the incident whereby the deceased

person was beaten occurred on 01.11.2022. Thereafter,

after two days, i.e. on 03.11.2022, he left his

residence on his own volition, and next day, his dead

body was found. He submitted that this gap of 48

hours was sufficient, and it cannot be said that

because of the incident occurred on 01.11.2022, the

deceased person has committed suicide. Further,

learned advocate Mr.Raju submitted that suicide note

R/CR.MA/23944/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

itself indicates that the family members of the

deceased were also not supporting him. Therefore, the

present applicants cannot be held responsible for

alleged suicide of the deceased person.

[5] According to learned advocate Mr.Raju, as

per the suicide note, it was alleged that the people

nearby, were also harassing the deceased person, and

therefore, the present applicants alone cannot held

responsible for alleged suicide of the deceased person.

[6] Learned advocate Mr.Raju relied upon the

judgment of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru

Bench in the case of M.J.Ananda @ Ananda Vs. State

of Karnataka passed in Criminal Petition No.2133 of

2016 and relied upon para 5 of the aforesaid order,

whereby the Court has specifically observed that

though the offence is exclusively triable by the

Court of Sessions, it is neither punishable with death

nor imprisonment for life and that being one of the

consideration, the Court was kind enough to grant

anticipatory bail to the accused person.

R/CR.MA/23944/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

[7] Learned advocate Mr.Raju also submitted

that there is no past incident in respect of the

present applicants. Relying on the another judgment

of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2002) 5

Supreme Court Cases page 371 in the case of Sanju @

Sanjay Singh Sengor Vs. State of M.P ., the learned

advocate for the applicant submitted that in that

case, the deceased person was asked to go and die,

and thereafter two days, he committed suicide. The

Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the view that suicide

was not direct result of the quarrel with the accused

person. By relying upon the aforesaid two judgments/

orders, learned advocate Mr.Raju has prayed for

anticipatory bail.

[8] Learned advocate Mr.Raju also submitted

that in the past also, the deceased person had fall in

love with some other girl, for which, an FIR was

also registered under the POCSO Act, and there also,

he was arrested. Therefore the family of the present

applicant no.1 was not ready and willing to see that

his daughter falls in love with a criminal, and

R/CR.MA/23944/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

because of that, marriage was not permitted by

applicant no.1. Therefore, considering the aforesaid

grounds, he prayed for anticipatory bail in respect of

applicants no.1 & 3.

[9] Learned APP Mr.Dhawan Jayswal

vehemently opposed the application and pointed out

that this Court to the observations made by the

learned Sessions Judge while rejecting the

anticipatory bail application and submitted that the

Sessions Court has considered the fact that the

suicide note of the deceased person, prima facie, reveals the fact that due to the marriage solemnized

between the daughter of present applicant no.1, and

deceased person as he belongs to different

community, therefore, it was not approved by the

families, as he was tortured the deceased person, due

to which, he has committed suicide.

[10] I have heard learned advocates for the

parties and perused the record. I have also

considered the fact that the deceased Ramesh has

R/CR.MA/23944/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

specifically stated in the suicide note that his

marriage was not liked by applicant no.1, and he did

not approve the marriage. The applicant no.1

alongwith other persons took the deceased person to

a Dabha, and he was severely beaten.

[11] I have also considered the fact and

submission of learned advocate Mr.Raju, that even

the family members of the deceased also did not

approve the marriage but there is no materials on

record to indicate that they also tortured the

deceased person to the extent that he was compelled

to commit suicide. Merely, because they were not

supporting, cannot be presumed that they also forced

the deceased person to commit the suicide. As far as

the various decisions relied upon by the learned

advocate Mr.Raju are concerned, all those decisions

are in respect of the facts of those cases, and as the

facts of this case is not identical to them, and the

same cannot be considered at this stage. The

deceased aged about 31 years, lost his life and

before that he was severely beaten by the applicants

R/CR.MA/23944/2022 ORDER DATED: 18/04/2023

no.1 and 3. Only the crime of the deceased was that

he fell in love with a girl belonging to a different

community, and therefore, if a person having such

conservative mind set, tortured the deceased person

to such an extent that he is forced to commit

suicide. In that case, this is certainly not a case for

anticipatory bail.

[12] In view of aforesaid discussions, the present

application is required to be dismissed, and the same

is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged.

(NIRZAR S. DESAI,J) MANOJ