Lalit Verma vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 1127 MP

       The High Court of Madhya Pradesh        :   Bench at Indore

                       M.Cr.C. No.14814/2021
                     (Lalit Verma Vs. State of M.P.)




Indore:26.03.2021
     Shri Arihant K. Nahar, learned counsel for the
applicant.
     Shri Ankit Premchandani, learned Panel Lawyer for
the non-applicant/State.
     Shri Nilesh J. Dave, learned counsel for the objector.
     With the consent, heard finally.
                           ORDER

This is first application filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. seeking bail arising out of Crime No.90/2021 under Section 306 of IPC registered at Police Station - Pardeshipura, District - Indore(M.P.).

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is in custody since 23/02/2021. Chalan has been filed. As per prosecution story, applicant had love relation with deceased Priya. The family of deceased was initially not willing for any marriage between the applicant and Priya, but later on, they decided to give their consent. However, the present applicant when came to know that such a consent was given and family is ready for marriage he started abusing the deceased. Because of her harassment and abuse she committed suicide on the intervening night of 05/02/2021 and 06/02/2021. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the necessary ingredients for attracting Section 306 of IPC are absent. By placing reliance on a Gujarat High Court judgment reported in 2012 SCC Online Guj 6051(Ishwarbhai Sanabhai Nayi(Barber) Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr.), it is submitted The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

M.Cr.C. No.14814/2021 (Lalit Verma Vs. State of M.P.)

that the applicant has been falsely implicated and Section 306 of IPC is wrongly invoked. The applicant has no criminal record. The custodial interrogation of the applicant is no more required. Thus, he may be enlarged on bail.

The prayer is opposed by the learned Panel Lawyer and by the learned counsel for the objector by contending that it is applicant's harassment because of which the deceased committed suicide. The story of suicide is not an afterthought because it finds place right from the merg intimation and FIR.

In have heard the parties at length and perused the record. The relevant portion of order of Gujarat High Court reads as under :-

1. The incident has occurred on 21-10-2005. In the incident Parulben had committed suicide at her home. The complainant is the father of the deceased. The story of the prosecution is that the deceased was in love with one Raju alias Rajnikant Govindbhai Rohit. On the previous day to the date of incident, Raju has refused to marry the deceased and as per say of the prosecution, this had led the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution has examined following nine witnesses:--

P.W 1 Ex-7 Ishwarbhai Sanabhai Nai Complainant falher of the deceased. P.W 2 Ex-10 Jayaben Ishwarbhai Nai Mother of the deceased. P.W 3 Ex-11 Praveenaben Ishwarbhai Nai Sister of the deceased. P.W 4 Ex-15 Pahyabhai Chaturbhai Harijan Sarpanch of Bhayli village. P.W 5 Ex-17 Dinkarbhai Anandrao Patil Panch Witness-Scene of offcnce P.W 6 Ex-19 Dr. Ashok Krishnalal Mahajan Dr. conducting Autopsy P.W 7 Ex-21 Rasiklal Narayanbhai Gura Hand-writing expert. P.W 8 Ex-25 Naginbhai Devjibhai Vasawa Investigating Officer P.W 9 Ex-27 Kanlibhai Naginbhai, A.S.I & I.O.

The High Court of Madhya Pradesh : Bench at Indore

M.Cr.C. No.14814/2021 (Lalit Verma Vs. State of M.P.)

15. No such circumstances in this case. If one is very sensitive and sentimental and commit an act in pursuance of his or her such temperament, then liability of his or her such act cannot be fasten upon the other person in the present case, it is the say of the prosecution that about one month prior to the date of incident, the accused has refused to marry the deceased and later on, he has agreed to marry her. One month has passed thereafter. In the circumstances, saying of no ought not to have been taken so seriously by her. Further, the complainant in his cross-examination says that, 'he said to the accused that he would get married his daughter when she becomes of age of 18 years.' This assurance was given by the complainant to the accused. In the circumstances of the case, suicide note is not possible to read in favour of the prosecution.

Considering the nature of accusation and the fact that applicant is a student of B.Com and his further custodial interrogation is no more required, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail.

Consequently, the application of the applicant filed under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. is hereby allowed. It is directed that the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and on the condition that he shall remain present before the Court concerned during the trial and also comply with the conditions enumerated under Section 437(3) of the Cr.P.C.

(Sujoy Paul) Judge

pn

PREETHA NAIR 2021.03.26 17:08:05 +05'30'