Rajasthan High Court
Kapil Kumar S/O Shri Amarchand vs State Of Rajasthan on 10 October, 2022
Bench: Sameer Jain
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 12071/2022
Kapil Kumar S/o Shri Amarchand, Aged About 23 Years, Resident
of Vill. Sumel Police Station Malakhera Alwar Distt. Alwar (Raj.)
(Petitioner is in J.C. In Jail Alwar)
Accused----Applicant
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through P.P.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Manish Gupta
For State(s) : Mr. Sher Singh Mehla, PP
For Complainant : Mr. Krishan Kumar Chhawal
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN
Order
10/10/2022
1. The instant bail application has been filed under Section
439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-applicant. The accused-applicant
was arrested in connection with FIR No.448/2022 registered at
Police Station Malakhera District Alwar for the offence(s) under
Section 306 of IPC.
2. Learned counsel for the accused-applicant has
submitted that the accused-applicant is a young boy aged 18
years, who has been falsely implicated in the matter. It is
submitted that the applicant is in custody since 22.07.2022. The
charge-sheet has been filed. Learned counsel has further
submitted that two sets of FIRs were lodged on different dates i.e.
28.06.2022 and 29.06.2022. Thus, the report in the instant
matter is an after thought to falsely implicate the accused-
applicant. Moreover, there is no dying declaration or a suicide
(2 of 3) [CRLMB-12071/2022]
note. Learned counsel has further submitted that there are no
criminal antecedents pending against the accused-applicant. It is
also submitted that ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not made
out as in the facts of the instant matter, there is no instigation to
commit suicide. He has also relied upon judgment of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal Vs.
Indrajeet Kandu reported in (2019) 10 SCC 188 decided on
18.10.2019, wherein it was held that merely words said in fit of
anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow, cannot be said to be instigation.
3. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor as well as learned
counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail
application. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted
that the accused-applicant was in close relation/proximity with the
deceased and they were in a love relationship for a long period of
time. It is further submitted that the present incident has occurred
on account of denial of marriage by the accused-applicant. Hence,
the applicant is fully responsible for the victim's demise. He has
also submitted that as per statements of eye-witnesses, it is a
clear case of instigation, as the incident has occurred only on
account of the denial of marriage Learned Public Prosecutor has
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, Section
306 of IPC cannot be ruled out at this stage.
4. Considering the arguments advanced by both the sides,
considering the record of the case, considering that the accused-
applicant and the victim were in a love relationship for a long
period of time, considering the statements tendered by the eye-
witnesses.
(3 of 3) [CRLMB-12071/2022]
5. Further, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for
the accused-applicant is based on different footing and is not
applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant matter and
looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and
material on record but without commenting on merits/demerits of
the case, this court is not inclined to allow the bail application at
this stage.
6. Accordingly, the bail application is dismissed at this
stage.
(SAMEER JAIN),J
JKP/24
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
