Udyabhan @ Bandu Raja vs The State Of M.P
2022 Latest Caselaw 554 MP

The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh MCRC No. 63562 of 2021 (UDYABHAN @ BANDU RAJA AND OTHERS Vs THE STATE OF M.P)

Jabalpur, Dated : 12-01-2022 Heard through Video Conferencing.

Shri Y.K.Gupta, learned counsel for applicant No.1 Udyabhan @ Bandu Raja S/o. Guman Singh and applicant No. Chandrabhan @ Raju Raja S/o. Guman Singh.

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.

Applicants are apprehending their 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 applicants submits that applicants are innocent. They have 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 Signature Not Verified SAN

(2002) 5 SCC 371 to point out that presence of mens rea is the Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.01.13 19:29:01 IST

necessary concomitant for instigaton. The word uttereed in a quarrel 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 applicants is that on 7.10.2021, they 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

Signature Not Verified SAN complainant Jannu Behna was going in his pick up van to immerse

Digitally signed by AMIT JAIN Date: 2022.01.13 19:29:01 IST

idol of goddess then deceased Kamal Yadav had instigated them and 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 applicants 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 19:29:01 IST