Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anuj Shukla vs The State Of M.P. on 27 October, 2021
Author: Rajeev Kumar Dubey
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 40902/2021
(Anuj Shukla Vs. State of M.P.)
1
Jabalpur, Dated : 27 / 10 / 2021
Shri Satyam Agrawal, counsel for the applicant.
Shri S.M. Patel, P.L. for the respondent / State.
Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, counsel for the objector.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
This is first application filed under section 439 Cr.P.C. Applicant
Anuj Shukla was arrested on 21.06.2021 in Crime No.342/2021
registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Tikamgarh for the offence
punishable under Section 306 of IPC.
As per the prosecution case, on 07.04.2021 deceased Rajni
Shukla, wife of the applicant Anuj Shukla committed suicide by
hanging herself. It is alleged that applicant and co-accused Gomanti Bai
mother-in-law, Ramswaroop Shukla father-in-law, Shashi Shukla sister-
in-law ( Jethani ) of the deceased Rajni Shukla demanded dowry and
assaulted her and also used to harass her. The deceased was a teacher in
a private school. The accused used to take away the salary that the
deceased got from the school, the accused also took away her ATM
card. It is also alleged that the applicant had an illicit relationship with
co-accused Shashi @ Sushila due to which the applicant also used to
harass the deceased which led her to commit suicide.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has falsely been implicated in this case. It is further
submitted that allegations regarding demand of dowry and harassment
are general in nature. In the alleged suicide note also it is not mentioned
that the applicant harassed the deceased. The deceased committed
suicide after seven years of marriage. From the allegations, no offence
under section 306 of IPC is made out against the applicant. Co-accused
Smt. Shashi @ Sushila has been granted bail by this Court vide order
dated 06.08.2021 passed in M.Cr.C. No. 33708/2021. The applicant has
been in custody since 21.06.2021 and the conclusion of the trial will
take time, hence prayed for the release of the applicant on bail. In this
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 40902/2021
(Anuj Shukla Vs. State of M.P.)
regard, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the
judgments passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Jagatlal and Ors. Vs. State of M.P. reported in 2016(2) M.P.L.J.
(Cri.) 44, Vinod Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. reported in ILR
(2016) M.P. 2067 and Pappu Khare Vs. State of M.P. reported in
2015(2) M.P.H.T. 271.
Learned counsel for the State as well as learned counsel for the
objector opposed the prayer and submitted that applicant has
extramarital affair with co-accused Shashi @ Sushila, demanded
dowry, used to harass the deceased Rajni Shukla and also assaulted her
due to which she committed suicide. It is further submitted that the
deceased left one suicide note in which it is mentioned that the
applicant and co-accused are the big problems, which clearly shows
that the deceased committed suicide due to harassment by the applicant
and co-accused, so applicant should not be released on bail.
In the case of Jagat Lal & Ors. vs. State of M.P., (supra) Vinod
Singh Baghel Vs. State of M.P. (supra) and Pappu Khare Vs. State
of M.P.(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant
coordinate Bench of this court after considering the evidence of those
cases held that no offence under section 306 IPC is made out against
the accused persons of those cases. The facts of those cases are not
exactly similar to this case. So those judgments do not assist the
applicant.
Whether the accused had by his acts and by his continuous
course of conduct created such a situation as a consequence of which
the deceased was left with no other option except to commit suicide;
Whether from the evidence, prima facie offence under section 306 IPC
is made out against the accused or not has to be considered on the basis
of evidence of each case.
The Apex Court in the case of Praveen Pradhan v. State of
Uttaranchal, (2012) 9 SCC 734 held "it is apparent that instigation has
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
M.Cr.C. No. 40902/2021
(Anuj Shukla Vs. State of M.P.)
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. ..."
The case of the applicant is not similar to the case of co-accused
Smt. Shashi who has been granted bail by this Court. Applicant is the
husband of the deceased, so he is not entitled to get bail on the basis of
parity. It is alleged that the applicant demanded dowry and assaulted the
deceased Rajni Shukla. The accused used to take away the salary that
the deceased got from the school, he also took away her ATM card. It is
also alleged that the applicant had an illicit relationship with co-accused
Shashi @ Sushila due to which the applicant also used to harass the
deceased which led her to commit suicide. So, looking to the facts and
circumstances of the case and the allegations against the applicant, this
court is not inclined to grant bail to the applicant, at this stage.
Hence, the M.Cr.C. is rejected.
However, this court clarifies that this order shall not effect the
merits of the trial.
(Rajeev Kumar Dubey)
sarathe Judge
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN KUMAR
SARATHE
Date: 2021.10.28
16:36:26 +05'30'
