Meharbaan Singh vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1624 MP

-1-                                MCRC No.20152/21




              HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH,
                          BENCH AT INDORE
                          MCRC NO.20152/21
         Meherbaan Singh s/o Umrao Singh vs. State of M.P
28.04.2021: (INDORE):
      Shri Satish Jain, learned counsel for the applicant.
      Ms.Bharti Lakkad, learned Panel Lawyer for the State.
      This is the first application filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C seeking
anticipatory bail as the applicant apprehends his arrest in connection
with Crime No.41/2021 registered at PS Suvasara, Mansaur for the
offence u/s 306/34 IPC.
      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 was 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 was a 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
 -2-                               MCRC No.20152/21




accused Surendra hence police has registered offence under Section
306/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Bharat Singh, Meharban
Singh and Surendra Singh.
        Learned counsel for the applicant 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 postmortem 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.
        Learned panel lawyer for the respondent/State opposes the

bail application.

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 .

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

-3- MCRC No.20152/21

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.

Considering the fact and circumstances, without commenting on the merit of the case, the application is hereby allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest of the applicant in connection with the aforesaid crime number, he shall be released on bail upon his 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 applicant shall co-operate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required;

(b) he 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;

-4- MCRC No.20152/21

(c) If the applicant is 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) he shall not leave the territory of India without the prior permission of the Court.

Certified copy as per rules.

(VIVEK RUSIA) JUDGE hk/ Digitally signed by HARI KUMAR C G NAIR Date: 2021.04.29 15:01:34 +05'30'