Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ashish vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 January, 2022
Author: Vivek Agarwal
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
MCRC No. 60623 of 2021
(ASHISH Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Jabalpur, Dated : 12-01-2022
Heard through Video Conferencing.
Shri Madan Singh, learned counsel for applicant Ashish S/o.
Ramesh Yadav.
Shri Pramod Saxena, learned Government Advocate for the non-
applicant/State.
This is first application under Section 438 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity "Cr.P.C") for grant of
anticipatory bail.
Applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime
No.186/2021 registered at Police Station Madiyado, District Damoh
for the offenc under Sections 306 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
1860 (for brevity "I.P.C").
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is
innocent. He has been falsely implicated in this case. None of the
ingredients of Section 107 of the I.P.C are made out. He places
reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Mahendra Singh & Another Gayatribai versus State of Madhya
Pradesh 1995 Supp (3) SCC 731 and submits that in a case under
Sections 306, 107, 498A of the I.P.C, the Supreme Court has held
that the conviction of abetment of sucident merely on the allegation
of harassment to the deceased is not sustainable. Similarly reliance is
also placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of Madhya Pradesh
(2002) 5 SCC 371 to point out that presence of mens rea is the
Signature Not Verified
SAN
necessary concomitant for instigaton. The word uttereed in a quarrel
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.01.13 19:29:00 IST
or on the spur of a moment, such as "to go and die" cannot be uttered
with mens rea. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Das verses Kartar Singh &
Others AIR 2007 11 SC 2045 wherein it is held that harassment of
wife by husband or in-laws due to the disputes & differences with per
se will not attract Section 306 read with Section 107 of the I.P.C, if
the wife commits suicide for a charge under Section 306 of I.P.C then
there has to be something more. On these grounds, prayer is made to
enlarge the applicant on anticipatory bail.
P e r Co ntra, learned Government Advocate for the non-
applicant/State opposes the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail to the
applicant.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through
the material available on record, it is evident that allegation against
the applicant is that on 7.10.2021, he alongwith other co-accused
persons had resorted to indiscriminate beating of deceased Kamal
Yadav who out of humiliation consumed poisonous Sulfas in the
morning of 8th October, 2021 and died during treatment. In the case
o f Randhir Singh & Another versus State of Punjab 2004 (13)
SCC 129, it has been observed that more active role, which can be
described as instigating or aiding the doing of a thing is required
before a person can be said to be abetting the commission of offence
under Section 306 of the I.P.C. It is a matter of evidence yet prima
facie it is evident that if a report was lodged against deceased Kamal
Yadav on 7.10.2021 at about 21.48 hours alleging that when
complainant Jannu Behna was going in his pick up van to immerse
Signature Not Verified
SAN
idol of goddess then deceased Kamal Yadav had instigated them and
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.01.13 19:29:00 IST
had used abusive language. Thereafter, fact of the matter is that
between 9 to 9:15 pm, the applicant and other co-accused persons,
who have been named in the F.I.R had brutally beaten deceased Kamal
Yadav in a public place with a view to humiliate him and after that
the incident took place had lodged a report against Kamal Yadav.
Prima facie, there appears to be ingredients so as to constitute mens
rea to humiliate a person belonging to a backward community and
looking to the gravity of the offence, I am of the opinion that since
investigation is not yet complete and presence of applicant may be
required during investigation, this is not a fit case to extend benefit of
anticipatory bail to the applicant looking to the gravity of the offence
and also taking into consideration a fact that the ratio of law laid
down by the Supreme Court in the cases Mahendra Singh &
Another Gayatribai versus State of Madhya Pradesh (supra),
Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of Madhya Pradesh
(supra) & Bhagwan Das verses Kartar Singh & Others (supra)
are not applicable to the facts & circumstances of the present case.
Accordingly, this anticipatory bail application stands dismissed.
(VIVEK AGARWAL)
JUDGE
amit
Signature Not Verified
SAN
Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN
Date: 2022.01.13 19:29:00 IST
