Rajesh Girothiya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 9021 MP

                                                                       1                           CRA-5220-2021
                                          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                                                   CRA No. 5220 of 2021
                                            (RAJESH GIROTHIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND OTHERS)


                                  Jabalpur, Dated : 21-12-2021
                                        Shri Manish Datt, learned senior counsel with Shri Pawan Gujar,

                                  learned counsel for the appellant.
                                        Shri Ravindra Rajpoot, learned P.L. for the respondent No.1/State.

Shri Deepak Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondent No.2. Case diary perused and arguments heard.

This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 14-A (1) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against the order dated 27/08/2021 passed by Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sehore in Bail Application No.292/2021; whereby learned Special Judge rejected the bail application filed by the appellant under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. to get anticipatory bail in Crime No.187/2021 registered at Police Station Ashta, Distt. Sehore for the offences punishable under Section 306, 34, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989.

As per the prosecution case, on 01.11.2017 deceased Ghanshyam

Khatri committed suicide by consuming some poisonous substance. It is alleged that deceased Ghanshyam Khatri had borrowed money from appellant Rajesh Girothiya and co-accused J.K. Seth @ Bharat Arora, Ramsingh Arya and Pratap for Kerosene business. He had returned the entire loan amount to them along with the interest, but even then appellant and other co-accused were not returning the cheques given by the deceased to them and the appellant and co-accused persons were pressuring him to give more money and they also harassed him, due to which deceased Ghanshayam Khatri committed suicide. In this regard deceased also left one suicide note. On that report, police registered Crime No.187/2021 for the offences punishable under Section 306, 34, 201 of IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act 1989 against appellant and co-accused persons. On that appellant filed an application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.24 14:21:40 IST 2 CRA-5220-2021 anticipatory bail, which was rejected by the learned Special Judge, SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, Sehore vide order dated 27/08/2021. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, appellant filed this Criminal Appeal.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that appellant has not committed any offence and has been falsely implicated in the offence. Even

otherwise from the allegation, no offence under Section 306 of the IPC and under the provision of SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act is made out against the appellant. The appellant is ready to cooperate in the investigation and trial. In the event of arrest, his reputation will be ruined. Hence, it is prayed that the applicant be released on anticipatory bail. In support of his contention learned counsel placed reliance on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra & Others, (2021) 2 SCC 427, Geo Varghese Vs. State of rajasthan & Another, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 873, and Ude Singh & Others Vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17 SCC 301.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State opposed the prayer and submitted that deceased Ghanshyam Khatri, who belongs to Scheduled Caste community committed suicide due to the harassment of appellant and in this regard deceased also left one suicide note, so looking to the provisions of Section 18 of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act appellant should not be released on anticipatory bail.

Complainant/respondent No.2 Smt. Chandrakala Khatri is present in person along with Shri Deepak Tiwari, advocate. She submits that if this Court grants bail to the applicant, she has no objection.

The facts of the cases upon which reliance is placed by the counsel for the applicant i.e. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra) Geo Varghese (supra) and Ude Singh (supra) do not match with the present case. In the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (supra) applicant / accused filed application invoking the jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Signature Not Verified Constitution of India and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and not under Section SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.24 14:21:40 IST 3 CRA-5220-2021 438/439 of the Cr.P.C. for grant of bail. In the case of Geo Varghese (supra) it is alleged that applicant who was the PTI teacher in the School harassed and insulted the deceased, due to which deceased boy committed suicide, while in this case it is alleged that applicant demanded excess money from deceased Ghanshyam Khatri and also harassed him, due to which he committed suicide. Similarly in the case of Ude Singh (supra) also Hon’ble Apex Court at the time of judgment after evaluating the statements of the prosecution witnesses found that it does not appear that applicant No.2 also abetted the deceased to commit suicide, while in this case the evidence has to be recorded. Even, in the case of Ude Singh (supra) Hon’ble Apex Court held that 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. So these judgements do not assist the applicant.

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734 held “ it is apparent that instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straitjacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which forced the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide. Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. …â€​ In the instant case from the FIR and the statements of prosecution witnesses it appears that deceased Ghanshyam Khatri had borrowed money from appellant Rajesh Girothiya and co-accused J.K. Seth @ Bharat Arora, Ramsingh Arya and Pratap for Kerosene business. He had returned the entire loan amount to them along with the interest, but even then appellant and other co-accused were not returning the cheques given by the deceased to them Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.24 14:21:40 IST 4 CRA-5220-2021 and the appellant and co-accused persons were pressuring him to give more money and they also harassed him, due to which deceased Ghanshayam Khatri committed suicide. The same is mentioned in the suicide note left by the deceased. So prima facie offence under Section 306 is made out against the appellant.

It also appears from the record that before the trial Court applicant's bail was opposed by the wife of the deceased. Even before this Court also earlier she filed written reply and opposed the applicant’s bail application, but thereafter she submitted that if this Court grants bail to the applicant, she has no objection, which shows that the applicant is trying to influence the prosecution witnesses. So this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Hence appeal is dismissed.

This Court, however, clarifies that this order shall not affect the merits of the trial.

(RAJEEV KUMAR DUBEY) JUDGE

as

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ANURAG SONI Date: 2021.12.24 14:21:40 IST