Dr Taranjeet Singh Gujral vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2021 Latest Caselaw 7767 MP

                                     1                           MCRC-56092-2021
          The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                  MCRC No. 56092 of 2021
              (DR TARANJEET SINGH GUJRAL Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)


Jabalpur, Dated : 24-11-2021
         Shri Manish Datt, learned Senior Advocate with Shri H.S. Chhabra,

Advocate for the applicant.
         Shri Y. D. Yadav, learned Government Advocate for the respondent /

State.

Shri Sushil Kumar Tiwari, Advocate for the objector.

Heard.

This is first application filed by the applicant / accused under section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail, apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No.1093/21 registered at Police Station Ranjhi, Jabalpur (MP) for the offences under sections 452, 294, 506, 306 r/w. Sec.34 of I.P.C.

The allegation against the applicant is that on 21.10.2021 the deceased Saurabh Sahu committed suicide by hanging himself on account of harassment given by the applicant and other co-accused persons. It is also

alleged that on 12.10.2021 the accused persons including the present applicant assaulted the deceased when he was sitting in his shop and outside of his shop as well.

It is submitted that the applicant is innocent and he has been falsely implicated. The deceased was a chronic alcoholic and there is likelihood that he may be under the influence of alcohol at the time he committed suicide. From the material available on record, no case for offence punishable under Sections 452, 294, 506, 306 r/w. Sec.34 of the IPC is made out. Further submitted that in order to constitute a case under Section 306 of IPC, the accused has to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide and there needs to be direct involvement by the accused in such abetment or instigation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance on the judgments of Hon’ble the Apex Court in 2 MCRC-56092-2021 the cases of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707, Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2020) 10 SCC 200 and Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371. Further submitted that the applicant is permanent resident of district Jabalpur. There is no likelihood of his absconding or tampering with the prosecution

witnesses. His custody is also not required for the purpose of custodial interrogation. There is no criminal antecedents of the applicant-accused. Hence, he be granted anticipatory bail.

Learned Panel Lawyer opposed the application and prayed for its rejection. Learned counsel for the objector vehemently opposed the application stating that a suicide note has been recovered from the pant of the deceased in which specific allegation has been made against the applicant. A video with regard to dying declaration of the deceased is available in the mobile, in which, the deceased has candidly alleged that the applicant with a view to grab the property tortured and harassed the deceased. If the applicant is given benefit of anticipatory bail then there is strong possibility that the applicant will tamper with the evidence and also try to back and forth the fulcrum of the investigation. Relying on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chander and another (2012) 9 SCC 460 prayed that the application be dismissed. Having considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, this court is of the view that the case, on which, reliance has been placed by the objector does not support him. The facts of each and every case may be different. At the stage of bail, appreciation of evidence is not required. Further in the postmortem report, no injury has been found on the person of the deceased. Moreover, marpeet was done with the deceased on 12.10.2021 and the deceased committed suicide on 21.10.2021. It is axiomatic that the deceased had sufficient time to report the matter to the police and other concerned authorities for redressal of his grievance but no such step has been taken. Under these circumstances, 3 MCRC-56092-2021 custodial interrogation of the applicant is not required. Applicant Dr. Taranjeet Singh Gujral is entitled to be granted anticipatory bail. Hence, this application is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the applicant be released on bail on his furnishing a bail bond and surety bond each for a sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rs. Fifty Thousand only).

The applicant-accused is directed to join the investigation immediately and fully co-operate with the investigation. He shall further abide by the other conditions enumerated in sub-section (2) of Section 438 of Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.

(ARUN KUMAR SHARMA) JUDGE

JP

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by JITENDRA KUMAR PAROUHA Date: 2021.11.24 17:18:19 IST