Gujarat High Court
State Of Gujarat vs Preeti Mapuskar on 8 January, 2024
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16171/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION (FOR CANCELLATION OF BAIL) NO.
16171 of 2023
==========================================================
STATE OF GUJARAT
Versus
PREETI MAPUSKAR
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR HK PATEL APP for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 08/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
1. By way of the present petition under Section 439(2) of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has
prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 3.7.2023 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad Rural in
Criminal Misc. Application No.2211 of 2023, whereby the
learned Session Judge has granted bail to the respondent -
original accused.
2. Heard learned APP for the petitioner State.
3. In Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak reported
in 2023 INSC 7613, the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering
judgment in case of Dolat Ram v State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC
349; Kashmira Singh v Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v
State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as follows:
'13. It is also required to be borne in mind that when a
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16171/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
prayer is made for the cancellation of grant of bail cogent
and overwhelming circumstances must be present and bail
once granted cannot be cancelled in a mechanical manner
without considering whether any supervening
circumstances have rendered it in conducing to allow fair
trial. This proposition draws support from the Judgment of
this Court in Daulat Ram and others v. State of Haryana
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 349, Kashmira Singh v. Duman
Singh (1996) 4 SCC 693 and xxx v. State of Telangana
(2018) 16 SCC 511.'
4. Learned APP though strongly argued to cancel the bail on
submission that the learned Sessions Court while granting bail
did not consider the factors to be considered for granting or
rejecting the bail, has failed to submit any supervening
circumstances being rendered it in conducing to allow fair trial.
Thus, it is urged to allow this petition and to cancel the bail
granted to the accused.
5. The learned Sessions Court while granting bail to the accused,
observed following in para 9.
"(9) Now, keeping in mind the above guidelines of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, various order of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court and
other High Courts and also of Hon'ble Supreme Court on Anticipatory
bails as well as on quashing order, here in this case, it appears that
the name of the applicant-accused is at serial No.6 on the surface of
the F.I.R. From the bail application as well as police papers, it
appears that, there is allegation leveled against the accused that, the
present applicant-accused had threatened the deceased and his son
and hence, the deceased committed suicide. Here from the arguments
of Ld. advocate for the applicant-accused that if the complaint is
accepted on its face value, it does not make out a case for commission
of the alleged offences namely; abetment for suicide and the alleged
offence under the Money Lenders Act. It is also a submission that the
loan was given and in repayment of that loan, the borrower didn't
support and when demanded the amount of loan and then the
original borrower was not supporting the demand of payment then
this conduct of demand of money which was given in a form of loan
doesn't mean that the applicant-accused has abeted him to suicide
though the deceased was not at all involved in the loan transaction as
the loan was taken by his son. Even from the arguments, it appears
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16171/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
that the present applicant- accused is a secretary and an employee of
accused No.1 and the present applicant had not lent any sum of
money to the deceased or any of his family members. From the
arguments, it also appears that the allegations made against the
present applicant accused, at the most it said as harassment or
mental torture or at best, cruelty which even otherwise cannot be said
as abetment of incitement to commit suicide. From the records, it
appears that the loan amount was due and that was demanded to
repay and the borrower failed to repay amount with interest which
was demanded and subsequently, the father of the borrower
committed suicide. As the applicant-accused as well as other co
accused demanded to refund/repay the loan amount advance by
them to the son of the deceased, would not in any manner be
considered as an act to instigate, incite or provoking the deceased to
commit suicide. Such act of demanding the repayment of money
would not bring case within the meaning of Section 306 of the Indian
Penal Code. There would not be any mens rea of the applicant-
accused as she would not benefited from the act of suicide of the
deceased. Even from the contentions of the FIR do not disclose any
instigation, which would fall within the definition of "abetment" of
Section 107 of the IPC and does not satisfy the ingredients of Section
306 of the IPC. Even from the records, it doesn't see that any report
qua the threat from the present applicant have been filed either by
borrower or by the deceased prior to this FIR. The FIR blames the
accused, that she is alleged to have goaded him to refund/repay the
amount, but never would have intended that the deceased should
commit suicide. Even the present applicant- accused is a woman and
even the FIR has been lodged after days of incident. There is no direct
instigation or abetment by the applicant-accused. Moreover, there is
no any antecedent qua the present applicant-accused. She is a
reputed person in the society and she has also deep roots in the
society as argued by the Ld. advocate for the applicant; she is a
permanent residence of above stated address and she will be easily
available during the course of investigation and trial as there is no
likelihood of the applicant-accused being absconding.
So, in this circumstances applicant - accused should be released on
anticipatory. So, looking to the gravity of offence with the
observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre, (supra) and considering the various
orders relied by the applicant, this Court is of the opinion that, it is a
fit case to exercise discretion conferred under Section- 438 of Cr.P.C.
to enlarge the applicant-accused on anticipatory bail. Hence, I pass
the following order in the interest of justice."
6. Thus, this Court finds no circumstances to adjudge the
impugned order as unjust and contrary to the settled principles
of law. As held earlier, the petitioner has failed to point out
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16171/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
supervening circumstances, which may interfere with the fair
trial. Further, merely because the deceased had not paid the
amount to the accused it would not bring the act as case for
instigation for commission of suicide.
7. Before parting with the order, I may also refer the
observations made in the recent decision by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in case of Kekhriesatuo Tep and others Vs.National
Investigating Agency reported in (2023) 6 SCC 58 . The relevant
observation made in para 20 reads as under:-
"20. An interference by an Appellate Court and particularly
in a matter when liberty granted to a citizen was being
taken away would be warranted only in the event the view
taken by the Trial Court was either perverse or impossible.
On this limited ground, we find that the appeals deserve to
be allowed."
8. At this juncture, I may refer to decision in case of Mohit
Singhal & Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., rendered in
Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 by the Hon'ble Apex Court in
regards to allegation of committal of suicide for demanding
money and for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC following
view is taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Paragraph 7 to 10
reads thus:
"7. The suicide note records that the third respondent had borrowed a
sum of Rs.60,000/-. According to the deceased, he had paid more
than half of the amount to Sandeep. The suicide note records that as
he could not pay the rest of the money, the first appellant came to his
house and started abusing him. He stated that the first appellant had
assaulted him, and therefore, he complained to the police. He further
noted that the business of giving money on interest was prospering.
He stated that the third respondent is not a prudent woman, and due
to her habit of intoxication and due to her conduct, she got trapped in
this. In the suicide note, it is further stated that the first appellant
has made his life a hell 8. According to the complaint of the third
NEUTRAL CITATION
R/CR.MA/16171/2023 ORDER DATED: 08/01/2024
undefined
respondent, the incident in her shop of the first appellant threatening
and assaulting her and her husband was on 15th June 2017. After
that, notice under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act,
1881, was issued by Sandeep to the deceased on 27th June 2017.
The suicide note was written three days after that, on 30th June
2017. The deceased committed suicide three days thereafter. Neither
in the complaint of the third respondent nor in the suicide note, it is
alleged that after 15th June 2017, the appellants or Sandeep either
met or spoke to the third respondent and her deceased husband.
Section 306 of the IPC makes abetment to commit suicide as an
offence. Section 107 of the IPC, which defines the abetment of a thing,
reads thus: "Section 107 -- Abetment of a thing.- A person abets the
doing of a thing, who-- First.--Instigates any person to do that thing;
or Secondly.--Engages with one or more other person or persons in
any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act or illegal omission
takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing
of that thing; or Thirdly.--Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal
omission, the doing of that thing. Explanation 1.-- A person who, by
wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact
which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or
attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate
the doing of that thing." (underline supplied) 9. In the facts of the
case, secondly and thirdly in Section 107, will have no application.
Hence, the question is whether the appellants instigated the deceased
to commit suicide. To attract the first clause, there must be
instigation in some form on the part of the accused to cause the
deceased to commit suicide. Hence, the accused must have mens rea
to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. The act of instigation
must be of such intensity that it is intended to push the deceased to
such a position under which he or she has no choice but to commit
suicide. Such instigation must be in close proximity to the act of
committing suicide. 10. In the present case, taking the complaint of
the third respondent and the contents of the suicide note as correct,
it is impossible to conclude that the appellants instigated the
deceased to commit suicide by demanding the payment of the amount
borrowed by the third respondent from her husband by using abusive
language and by assaulting him by a belt for that purpose. The said
incident allegedly happened more than two weeks before the date of
suicide. There is no allegation that any act was done by the
appellants in the close proximity to the date of suicide. By no stretch
of the imagination, the alleged acts of the appellants can amount to
instigation to commit suicide. The deceased has blamed the third
respondent for landing in trouble due to her bad habits. "
9. Resultantly, present petition fails and stands dismissed.
(J. C. DOSHI,J)
sompura
