Mahendra Kumar Sankhla vs State Of Rajasthan
2023 Latest Caselaw 6097 Raj

     HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                      JODHPUR
   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 9139/2023

Mahendra Kumar Sankhla S/o Sh. Sugnaram Ji, Aged About 28
Years, B/c Sankhla (Mali), R/o Sankhlo Ka Bera W.no. 1 Pipar
City P.s. Pipar City
(Presently Lodged In Central Jail, Jodhpur).
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
   S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 3591/2023
Mahendra Kumar Sankhla S/o Shri Sugnaram Ji, Aged About 28
Years, B/c Sankhala (Mali), R/o Sankhalo Ka Bera Ward No. 1,
Pipar City P.s. Pipar City.
                                                                          ----Petitioner
                                      Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Petitioner(s)            :    Mr.Chiranji Lal Mathur.
For Respondent(s)            :    Mr.Salim Khan, P.P.



          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR

                                      ORDER

19/08/2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the

petitioner Mahendra Kumar has been arrested in connection with

FIR No.62/2023 registered at Police Station Basni, Jodhpur City

(West), the application for anticipatory bail i.e. CRLMB

No.3591/2023 has been rendered infructuous.

Accordingly, the bail application (CRLMB No.3591/2023) is

dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.

                                         (2 of 4)                    [CRLMB-9139/2023]


      The    application      for    bail    (CRLMB         No.9139/2023)      under

Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who has been

arrested in connection with FIR No.62/2023 registered at Police

Station Basni, District Jodhpur City (West), for offence under

Section 306 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the

petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned

counsel submitted that deceased Mst.'S' committed suicide by

hanging herself. Learned counsel submitted that as per

prosecution, the petitioner promised the deceased to marry her

and developed physical relations under this fictitious assurance.

Learned counsel submitted that the deceased, who was a mature

lady was in consensual relationship with the present petitioner

from last 5 - 6 years. Learned counsel submitted that there is

nothing on record to indicate that the deceased did not exercise

her choice of developing consensual relationship with the

petitioner consciously and out of her free will and volition. Learned

counsel submitted that the petitioner did not instigate or

intentionally aided the deceased to commit suicide. Learned

counsel submitted that without a positive act on the part of the

accused - petitioner to instigate or aid the deceased to commit

suicide, the allegation for offence under Section 306 IPC is not

sustainable in the eyes of law.

Learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by

Hon'ble the Apex court in M. Arjuna vs. State, represented by

its Inspector of Police, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, wherein

the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-

(3 of 4) [CRLMB-9139/2023]

"The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment, (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C."

Learned counsel further also relied upon the judgment

rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S.

Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in

(2010)12 SCC 190, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court while

deciding a criminal appeal held that abetment involves a mental

process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in

doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused

to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be

sustained.

Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial

custody, challan has been filed and the trial of the case will take

sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be

granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor opposed the bail

application.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public

Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and

circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that there

is no evidence available on record showing that the petitioner is

(4 of 4) [CRLMB-9139/2023]

guilty of the act of instigating/abetting the deceased to commit

suicide. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits

of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application (CRLMB No.9139/2023)

under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the

accused-petitioner- Mahendra Kumar Sankhla S/o Sh.

Sugnaram Ji shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR

No.62/2023 registered at Police Station Basni, District Jodhpur

City (West), provided he furnishes a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for his appearance before

the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called

upon to so.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations

made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail

application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.

(KULDEEP MATHUR),J /tarun goyal/

Sr.No.82,83

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)