Sachin Vijay vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 265 Ker

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

  WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

                      Bail Appl..No.5442 OF 2020

    CRIME NO.336/2020 OF Infopark Police Station , Ernakulam


PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

      1         SACHIN VIJAY
                AGED 36 YEARS
                SAYOOJYAM HOUSE, THRIKKODITHANAM, CHANGANASSERY,
                KOTTAYAM.
                686105

      2         ANVIN ALLEN
                AGED 32 YEARS
                ALLENDALE HOUSE, NEAR S.B COLLEGE, CHANGANASSERY.
                686101

                BY ADV. SRI.ADITHYA RAJEEV

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

R1 BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5252/2020 AND Bail Appl..5523/2020, THE COURT ON 06.01.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

Bail Appl..No.5252 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1400/2020 DATED 03-08-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

CRIME NO.336/2020 OF Infopark Police Station, Ernakulam

PETITIONER/S:

USHA PRATHAP AGED 61 YEARS 8D, MARIGOLD, SKYLINE APT, NORTH FORT GATE, TRIPPUNITHURA 682301

BY ADVS.

SRI.B.SURJITH SMT.RAHANA JOSE SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

R1 BY SRI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN,PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5442/2020, Bail Appl..5523/2020, THE COURT ON 06.01.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

WEDNESDAY, THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 16TH POUSHA, 1942

Bail Appl..No.5523 OF 2020

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN CRMC 1578/2020 DATED 19-08-2020 OF DISTRICT COURT & SESSIONS COURT, ERNAKULAM

PETITIONER/ACCUSED:

PRATISH CHNADRAN NAIR AGED 35 YEARS 8D, MARIGOLD, SKYLINE APT, NORTH FORT GATE, TRIPPUNITHURA, PIN - 682301 682301

BY ADVS.

SRI.B.SURJITH SRI.P.VIJAYA BHANU (SR.)

RESPONDENT/S:

STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT OF KERALA 682031

R1 BY RI.C.N.PRABHAKARAN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

THIS BAIL APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 16.10.2020, ALONG WITH Bail Appl..5252/2020, Bail Appl..5442/2020, THE COURT ON 06.01.2021 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

COMMON ORDER [ Bail Appl..5442/2020, Bail Appl..5252/2020, Bail Appl..5523/2020 ]

Dated this the 6th day of January 2021

Applications for anticipatory bail under

Section 438 Cr.P.C.

2. Applicants in BA No.5442/2020 are accused

Nos.1 and 2, applicant in BA No.5523/2020 is the

3rd accused while the applicant in BA No.5252/2020

is the 4th accused in Crime No.336 of 2020 of

Infopark Police Station. They have allegedly

committed offences punishable under Sections 323,

330, 348, 357, 294 (b), 506 (i) and 306 read with

Section 34 of the I.P.C.

3. The prosecution case as stated by the

First Informant Deejo John, in brief, is thus:

Sudhamkumar Chakravarthy (deceased) was a friend of BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

Deejo John, and they used to work together in Metro

Plaza Opposite the North Railway Station,

Ernakulam. They hired flat No.G201 in DLF Town

Heights at Kakkanad on lease and were residing

together with their families. John, his wife and

the deceased, his wife, child and mother in law

stayed together. The deceased hailed from West

Bengal. John admits that even though they were

residing together, he knew little about the early

life, character or family background of the

deceased. During the year 2019, the deceased

started an online food kitchen named 'AAMRAS' in

partnership with A1 to A3 and the wife of A3. A1

and A2 invested ₹ 5 lakhs while A3 obtained a loan

of ₹10 lakhs from OBC bank for starting the said

business. Since the loan was obtained in the name

of A3, the food kitchen was also registered in his BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

name. However, A3 and his wife were fond of

consuming alcohol and therefore, the business did

not flourish as expected, and was ultimately wound

up. Thereafter, the deceased together with A1 and

A2 and their friend Vivek started a restaurant

named, 'AAMRAS KITCHEN' in Whitefield, Bangalore.

The deceased did not invest any amount, but the

other three invested ₹24 lakhs in the said

business, which was commenced in the name of the

deceased's wife, Ms Justine Peter. The said

restaurant functioned till March 2020. Thereafter,

due to lock down following the Covid-19 pandemic,

it stopped functioning. The deceased received 30

percent of the profit from that restaurant. The

accused alleged that the deceased had appropriated

₹10 lakhs from out of the amount invested by the

other three. Consequently, there was a dispute that BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

ensued. They demanded their money from the deceased

and he kept on seeking time to pay the amount. The

4th accused who is the mother of the 3rd accused,

was known well to the deceased and his wife.

Because of his financial difficulties, on

22/06/2020 the deceased requested her to lend

him ₹75,000/-. She asked him to come home for

collecting the money she had borrowed from her

brother. Accordingly, the deceased and John went to

her house at Thuravoor by about 12 noon on

22/06/2020. They exchanged pleasantries and the A4

also served them with snacks. Within a short while,

A1 to A3 and four other identifiable persons

reached there in two cars. A1 hurled abuses at the

deceased and John and thereafter, slapped and

punched both of them. The others also assaulted

them. They demanded the sum of ₹24 lakhs invested BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

by them in the business at Bangalore and

intimidated the deceased stating that he would be

taken to Perumbavoor and detained there till

payment was made. On realising that John was only

accompanying the deceased, he was spared, but the

A1 and A2 continued to assault the deceased. A4

remained a mute spectator to all this and John

realised that the assault was in furtherance of

common intention of all the accused. By about 3 PM,

Vivek also reached there. After the assault,

deceased was taken to a room on the 1st floor of

the house and John was asked to apply balm and warm

water to the inflamation over sustained over the

body of the deceased with the intent to relieve him

of his pain. The deceased revealed that his mother

in law has invested about ₹17 lakhs in mutual funds

and that it could be liquidated after obtaining her BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

consent. By about 7:00 PM, John was taken to his

residence by A1 and A2 in their car with the intent

to collect the mutual fund certificates. On

reaching home, John informed Justin about the

detention of the deceased and asked her to handover

the mutual fund certificates and credit cards to

get him released. Accordingly, she handed over the

certificates and the credit cards of the deceased

to John and he was again taken by A1 and A2 to the

house of A4. The deceased and John spent the night

at the house of A4. The mutual fund certificates

could not be liquidated without obtaining a consent

letter from the deceased's mother in law, and hence

John and the deceased were taken to their home the

next day morning by about 11:25 AM. The deceased

and his wife attempted to get a consent letter from

the mother-in-law. However, she was not amenable to BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

give such consent although the deceased tried his

best to convince her. While A1 and A2 were waiting

in the drawing room, the wife of the deceased

raised and an alarm, and on hearing that, John and

his wife rushed to her bedroom. They saw the

deceased attempting to jump from the balcony.

Altough John, his wife and Ms.Justin attempted to

prevent the deceased from jumping, they failed. He

fell down and got injured. John and his wife rushed

down to rescue him. They called the Police and

thereafter, took him to the General Hospital

Ernakulam. The doctor informed them that he was no

more. No sooner did the deceased jump from the

flat, A1 and A2 skulked away from there. John

alleges that the deceased was assaulted,

intimidated and wrongfully confined by the accused

with the common intention to compel him to pay BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

amounts allgedly due to A1 and A2 and thereby

abetted him to commit suicide.

4. A1 and A2 have in their application for

anticipatory bail stated that they are innocent and

have nothing to do with the alleged suicide of the

deceased. A3 contends that the deceased had

borrowed money from A1, A2 and A5 for starting

business. The deceased was a financial consultant

and had assisted A3 to start a business himself

after obtaining a loan. However the business

failed. The deceased was very close to A4, the

mother of A3, and used to frequently visit her. He

also used to borrow money from her. There was no

money due from the deceased to A3 and therefore,

there was no reason for him to assault or

intimidate the deceased. Even according to the

statement given by John, there is no allegation BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

about A3 or A4 assaulting the deceased. A4 contends

that the deceased was in need of urgent money and

that she had arranged a sum of ₹ 75,000/- from her

brother to be handed over to the deceased. All

these are revealed from the WhatsApp chats that she

had with the deceased prior to his visiting her

home at Thuravoor for collecting the amount. The

deceased and the others were discussing over the

business matters in the rooms situated on the 1st

floor of her house. They had also ordered food. She

states that she was not aware of any assault and

she herself being ill went to bed early and knew

nothing about the deceased being intimidated for

money payable by him to A1 and A2. She has produced

the printouts of the WhatsApp chat she had with the

deceased on the days prior to his death.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel Shri BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

P.Vijayabhanu appearing for A3 and A4, Sri Aaditya

Rajeev, appearing for A1 and A2 and the learned

Senior Public Prosecutor Sri C.N. Prabhakaran for

the State. Records perused.

6. The learned Senior Counsel Shri

Vijayabhanu submits that there is no evidence

regarding any amount due from the deceased to A3

and A4. Hence, there was no reason why they should

assault intimidate or force the deceased to pay any

amount to them. There was no abetment by them to

instigate the deceased to commit suicide. A3 and A4

were not present when the deceased jumped from his

flat to commit suicide. It is also pointed out that

the immediate and proximate reason for the deceased

to commit suicide was the refusal of his mother-in-

law to part with her mutual fund investments to

help the deceased to clear his debts.The learned BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

counsel for A1 and 2 submits that the accused would

never have wanted the deceased to commit suicide as

he owed mony to them, and that could not have been

realised in case of his death.

7. Sri C.N. Prabhakaran, learned Prosecutor,

has opposed the applications for bail with much

vehemence. He states that the deceased was brutally

assaulted by the accused in furtherance of common

intention. The deceased had sustained losses in his

business because of the lockdown following the

pandemic. There is no material indicating that the

deceased had cheated any of the accused. Because of

his financial difficulties, the deceased was unable

to clear his debts and due to the intimidation,

harassment and assault by the accused, he was

driven to commit suicide, as he had no other option

left.

BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

8. Before evaluating the contents of the FIR

and the statements of the prime witness, a

reference to Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code

is necessary. Section 306 stipulates that if a

person commits suicide "whoever abets the

commission of such suicide" shall be punished with

imprisonment extending up to 10 years.

9. Section 107 is comprised within Chapter V

of the Indian Penal Code, which is titled "Of

Abetment". Section 107 provides thus:

"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 willful misrepresentation, or by willful BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

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.

Illustration: a public officer, is authorised by a warrant from a Court of Justice to apprehend Z, B, knowing that fact and also that C is not Z, willfully represents to A that C is Z, and thereby intentionally causes A to apprehend C.

        Here   B   abets    by   instigation   the
        apprehension of C.

Explanation 2.-Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

10. 'Abetment' in Section 306 I.P.C. has to be

understood with reference to its definition given

in Section 107 I.P.C. Considering the scope of

Section 107 I.P.C. the Supreme Court in C.B.I. v.

V. C. Shukla [AIR 1998 SC 1406] observed thus:

". . .a person abets the doing of a thing when he does any of the acts mentioned in BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

the following three clauses.

(i) instigates that person to do that thing.

(ii) engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that things.

(iii) Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. So far as the first two clauses are concerned it is not necessary that the offence instigated should have been committed. For understanding the word 'aid' in the third clause it would be advantageous to see Explanation 2 in S. 107, I.P.C., which reads thus :

"Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of the act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."

It is thus clear that under the third clause when a person abets by aiding, the act so aided should have been committed in BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

           order           to    make      such        aiding          an
           offence.. . ."

11. In Sia Ram v. State of U.P. [AIR 1975 SC

175], the Supreme Court held that in order to

constitute abetment, the abettor must be shown to

have intentionally aided the commission of the

crime. It is clearly held that mere proof that the

crime could not have been committed without the

interposition of the alleged abettor is not enough

compliance with the requirement of S. 107, I.P.C.

Various High Courts have taken a view that merely

because a person committed suicide by feeling

insulted or humiliated, due to the comments or

utterances made by the accused, the accused cannot

be said to be guilty of an offence under S. 306,

I.P.C. In Devraj v. State of H. P. [1991 (3) Crimes

383], if a partner in a firm committed suicide due BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

to the other partners (accused) taking away large

sums of money out of partnership fund for various

purposes and their not rendering an account to the

deceased, and for not permitting the deceased

utilizing the profits, the other partners in the

firm who are accused of an offence under S. 306,

I.P.C. for the suicide of the deceased, were held

to be not guilty of such offence.

12. In Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal

[(2010) 1 SCC 707], the Supreme Court having

adverted to the earlier decisions, observed:

" 12...It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of 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, conviction in terms of Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable."

The Court noted that before a person may be said to BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

have abetted the commission of suicide, they "must

have played an active role by an act of instigation

or by doing certain act to facilitate the

commission of suicide".

13. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan

[(2010) 12 SCC 190], the Hon'ble Supreme Court

observed thus:

"25 . Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the Accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this Court is clear that in order to convict a person Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."

Recently, in M. Arjunan v. State (represented by

its Inspector of Police)[(2019) 3 SCC 315], the

Hon'ble Supreme Court elucidated the essential BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

ingredients of the offence under Section 306 of the

Indian Penal Code and held thus:

" 7. The essential ingredients of the offence Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code are: (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the Accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the Accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the Accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.

Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied the Accused cannot be convicted Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code."

Again, in Ude Singh and Ors. v. State of Haryana

[2019 KHC 6714 : AIR 2019 SC 4570], the Supreme

Court expounded on the ingredients of Section 306

of the Indian Penal Code, and the factors to be

considered in determining whether a case falls

within the ken of the aforesaid provision, as

follows:

"38. In cases of alleged abetment of BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

suicide, there must be a proof of direct or indirect act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. It could hardly be disputed that the question of cause of a suicide, particularly in the context of an offence of abetment of suicide, remains a vexed one, involvingmultifaceted and complex attributes of human behaviour and responses/reactions. In the case of accusation for abetment of suicide, the Court would be looking for cogent and convincing proof of the act/s of incitement to the commission of suicide. In the case of suicide, mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another person would not suffice unless there be such action on the part of the Accused which compels the person to commit suicide; and such an offending action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. Whether a person has abetted in the commission of suicide by another or not, could only be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case.

39. For the purpose of finding out if a person has abetted commission of suicide by another, the consideration would be if the Accused is guilty of the act of instigation of the act of suicide. As explained and reiterated by this Court in the decisions above-referred, instigation means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage to do an act. If the persons who committed suicide had been hypersensitive and the action of Accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly circumstanced person to commit suicide, it may not be safe to hold the Accused guilty of abetment of suicide. perceiving no other option except to commit suicide, the case may fall within the four-corners of Section BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

306 Indian Penal Code. If the Accused plays an active role in tarnishing the self-esteem and self-respect of the victim, which eventually draws the victim to commit suicide, the Accused may be held guilty of abetment of suicide. The question of mens rea on the part of the Accused in such cases would be examined with reference to the actual acts and deeds of the Accused and if the acts and deeds are only of such nature where the Accused intended nothing more than harassment or snap show of anger, a particular case may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide. However, if the Accused kept on irritating or annoying the deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment of suicide. Such being the matter of delicate analysis of human behaviour, each case is required to be examined on its own facts, while taking note of all the surrounding factors having bearing on the actions and psyche of the Accused and the deceased."

Similarly, in Rajesh v. State of Haryana [2019 SCC

OnLine SC 44], The Supreme Court held as follows:

"9. Conviction Under Section 306 Indian Penal Code is not sustainable 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. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306 Indian Penal Code, there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the said offence, the person BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

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. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged with the said offence must be proved and established by the prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306 Indian Penal Code."

In a recent decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court

in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab [(2020) 10

SCC 200], it was held thus:

"15. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established. To prove the offence of abetment, as specified Under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code, the state of mind to commit a particular crime must be visible, to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the Appellant herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind, abetted the suicide of the deceased."

14. In Vaijnath Kondiba Khandke v. State of

Maharashtra and Ors.[(2018) 7 SCC 781], the Supreme

Court, was dealing with an appeal against the

rejection of an application under Section 482 of BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

the Code of Criminal Procedure, for quashing an FIR

registered under Sections 306 and 506 read with

Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. A person

serving in the office of the Deputy Director of

Education, Aurangabad had committed suicide on 8

August 2017. His wife made a complaint to the

police that her husband was suffering from mental

torture as his superiors were getting heavy work

done from her husband. This resulted in him having

to work from 10 AM to 10 PM and even at odd hours

and on holidays. The specific allegation against

the Appellant was that he had stopped the

deceased's salary for one month and was threatening

the deceased that his increment would be stopped.

This Court noted that there was no suicide note,

and the only material on record was in the form of

assertions made by the deceased's wife in her BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

report to the police. The Court went on to hold

that the facts on record were inadequate and

insufficient to bring home the charge of abetment

of suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal

Code. The mere factum of work being assigned by the

appellant to the deceased, or the stoppage of

salary for a month, was not enough to prove

criminal intent or guilty mind. Consequently,

proceedings against the appellant were quashed.

15. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary

to advert briefly to the contents of the FIR and

the statement of Deejo John in the present case. In

his statement, he has admitted that he does not

know much about the antecedents of the deceased

although they were both residing together with

their families in the same flat. It was the 1 st

accused who had slapped the deceased and also on BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

the face and they were also hurled with the abuses.

There is no specific allegation regarding A3 and A4

joining the other accused and assaulting or

questioning the deceased. When the deceased stated

that he was willing to pay the amounts due to A1

and A2 by liquidating the mutual funds in the name

of his mother-in-law, it was A1 and A2 who had

accompanied Deejo John to collect those documents.

Accordingly, those documents were collected and

handed over to the accused. However, it was

revealed that the mutual funds could not be

liquidated without obtaining a specific consent

from the mother-in-law of the deceased and

therefore, accused 1 and 2 took the deceased and

Deejo John again to their flat on the fateful day.

A1 and A2 were waiting there to collect the consent

letter. However, the mother-in-law of the deceased BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

refused to hand over any such consent letter to

clear the debts of her son-in-law. The deceased was

frustrated and decided to commit suicide. Statement

recorded by the police during the course of

investigation, tend to show that on account of

business transactions with the accused, including

the appellant herein, the deceased was put under

tremendous pressure to do something which he was

perhaps not willing to do. Prima facie, it appears

that the conduct of the accused, particularly A1

and A2, was such that the deceased was left with no

other option except to end his life and, therefore,

clause first of S.107 of the IPC was attracted.(See

Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (Govt. of NCT of

Delhi) [2009 KHC 971: AIR 2010 SC 1446]).

16. The fact that A1 and A2 had accompanied

Deejo John on 22/06/2020 to collect the mutual fund BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

certificates and thereafter, they once again taken

the deceased and Deejo John to their flat for

getting the consent letter the mother-in-law of the

deceased would indicate that the deceased was put

under tremendous pressure to clear the amounts he

owed to A1 and A2. Admittedly, the deceased did not

owe any money to A3 or his mother A4. In fact, he

had gone to meet A4 to collect a sum of ₹ 75,000/-

which he had arranged for him. The WhatsApp chats

between A4 and the deceased indicates the cordial

relationship they had and that the deceased had

gone to her house for collecting the money.

17. While considering an application for the

grant of bail in a suitable case, the High Court

must consider the settled factors which emerge from

the precedents of this Court. These factors can be

summarized as follows:

BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

(i) The nature of the alleged offence, the nature

of the accusation and the severity of the

punishment in the case of a conviction;

(ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension

of the Accused tampering with the witnesses or

being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) The possibility of securing the presence of

the Accused at the trial or the likelihood of the

Accused fleeing from justice;

(iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are

peculiar to the Accused;

(v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the

offence are made out, on the basis of the

allegations as they stand, in the FIR; and

(vi) The significant interests of the public or the

State and other similar considerations.

These principles have evolved over a period of time BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

and emanate from the following (among other)

decisions: Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi

[(2001) 4 SCC 280]; Ram Govind Upadhyay v.

Sudarshan Singh [(2002) 3 SCC 598]; State of UP v.

Amarmani Tripathi [(2005) 8 SCC 21]; Prasanta Kumar

Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee [(2010) 14 SCC 496];

Sanjay Chandra v. CBI [(2012) 1 SCC 40]; and P.

Chidambaram v. Central Bureau of Investigation

[2019 KHC 7072: AIR 2019 SC 5272].

18. Considering the principles laid down by

the Honourable Supreme Court, I find that the

accused Nos.3 and 4 are entitled to anticipatory

bail whereas accused Nos.1 and 2 are not entitled

to bail considering their active involvement in

abetting the suicide of the deceased.

19. In the result, BA No.5442/2020 is

dismissed while BA Nos.5252/2020 and 5523/2020 are BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

allowed. In the event of their being arrested,

accused 3 and 4 shall be released on bail on

execution of bond for ₹50,000 (Rupees fifty

thousand only) each with two solvent sureties for

like amount each to the satisfaction of the

arresting officer and on following conditions:

(i) They shall appear before the investigating

officer as and when called for and co-operate with

the investigation.

(ii) They shall not tamper with evidence or

intimidate or influence the witnesses.

(iii)They shall not get involved in any similar

offence during the currency of the bail.

In case of breach of any of the above bail

conditions, the prosecution is at liberty to

approach the jurisdictional court for cancellation

of the bail.

BA Nos.5442/2020 & conn.

A1 and A2 shall, on being arrested, be produced

before the jurisdictional Court where they are at

liberty to apply for regular bail.

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

jg