Surendra Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1189 MP

                                1



      THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
              BENCH AT INDORE
            M.Cr.C. No.11983 of 2021
        (Surendra Singh V/s State of M.P.)
             M.Cr.C. No.10714 of 2021
           (Bharat Singh V/s State of M.P.)

Indore, dated:01/04/2021
        o Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for the applicant

           in M.Cr.C. No.11983/2021.
        o Shri Santosh Kumar Meena, learned counsel for

           the applicant in M.Cr.C. No.10714/2021.
        o Shri Karpe Prakhar Mohan, learned panel lawyer

           for the respondent/State.

These are the first bail applications of the applicants filed under Section 438, Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail on the apprehension of their arrest in Crime No.41/2021, by Police Station- Suvasara, District- Mandsaur for the commission of the offence under Sections 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

As per the prosecution case, the marriage of the deceased Raveena took place with Mahendra Singh Rajput three years ago. After one year of marriage, she started living with her husband's house but used to visit village Guda for pursing studies of class-12. In the same village Bharat Singh, Meharban Singh and Surendra Singh used to follow her because of which she so much perturbed and scared. They somehow obtained a mobile number of Raveena and started messaging and calling her. She told this fact to her parents. Because of so much

harassment meted out to her she had fear of slander in society hence she committed suicide on 28.12.2020 in the house of her husband. She was cremated by the in- laws without reporting to police about the unnatural death. The police registered Merg no.06/2021 on 03.02.2021 and started the investigation about possibilities of harassment and cruelty by the husband and the family members of the deceased. The statements of the parent, brother and sister of the deceased were recorded in which they did not allege anything against the husband and other family members. But they disclosed that she was so much scared by the harassment meted out by Bharat Singh, Meharban Singh and Surendra Singh who used to call her and message her. They also provided their mobile numbers .Thereafter, police have collected the CDR of the deceased and found that there were number of calls and messages exchanged between them from 26.11.2020 till 06.12.2020. Maximum numbers of calls and messages were sent by accused Surendra hence police has registered offence under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Bharat Singh, Meharban Singh and Surendra Singh.

3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits there is an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and it is not confirmed whether she committed suicide or she was murdered or died due to natural death, since the body was cremated without post mortem and without giving

information to the police hence the cause of death is still unknown hence, prosecution story is the concocted story. learned counsels further submit that even if the allegations are believed to be true then ingredients of Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code are missing. The applicants never instigated or abated the deceased for committing suicide. The applicants are youth aged between 20 to 22 years and if they are arrested their future will be spoiled. They are ready to cooperate with the investigation. The police have already recovered the mobile phone of the deceased and recorded the statement of witnesses therefore, there is no question of influencing the witnesses and tampering with the evidence. Under these circumstances, learned counsel prays for grant of bail to the applicants.

4. Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the bail application.

5. The investigating officer is present through video conferencing and submits that proceeding under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. has been initiated against the in-laws of the deceased because information about unnatural death was not given to the police. In view of the statements given by the parents of the deceased and the phone number and the call details, the applicants are not entitled to bail.

6. As per CDR collected by the police there were number of calls and messages exchanged between all the

accused and the deceased. The cause of death is based on oral evidence. No eyewitnesses have seen the applicants stalking and following the deceased. From the CDR primafacie, it cannot be held that the applicants have abetted the deceased to commit suicide without corroborating evidence .

7. The law with regard to applicability of Section 306 of IPC is well settled.. The Supreme Court of India in the recent case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs State of Maharashtra and Others reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 964 has again summarised the law in respect of the scope of section 107 & 306 of the I.P.C. , the relevant paragraphs are as under:-

57. Dealing with the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC and the meaning of abetment within the meaning of Section 107, the Court observed:

"12. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring about the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note."

58. The Court noted that the suicide note expressed a state of anguish of the deceased and "cannot be depicted as expressing anything intentional on the part of the

accused that the deceased might commit suicide". Reversing the judgment of the High Court, the petition under Section 482 was allowed and the FIR was quashed.

8. Considering the fact and circumstances, without commenting on the merit of the case, the applications of Bharat Singh and Surendra Singh are hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant- Bharat Singh and Surendra Singh in connection with the aforesaid crime number, they shall be released on bail upon their furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand) with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the arresting officer. This order shall be governed by the following conditions:

(a) the applicants shall co-operate with the investigation and make themselves available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(b) they shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or any police officer;

(c) If the applicants are found involved in any criminal case of the same nature during this bail period, this order granting the benefit of anticipatory bail shall be liable to be cancelled; and

(d) they shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                                       (Vivek Rusia)
      Ajit                                                Judge


Digitally signed by AJIT KAMALASANAN
Date: 2021.04.05 17:05:26 +05'30'