Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Kalpitraj Vaishnav vs State Of Rajasthan (2024:Rj-Jd:24034) on 27 May, 2024
Author: Kuldeep Mathur
Bench: Kuldeep Mathur
[2024:RJ-JD:24034]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 399/2024
Kalpitraj Vaishnav S/o Shri Rajesh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o
Near Somnath Chouraha, Kankroli, Tehsil Rajsamand, Dist.
Rajsamand, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Vandit Vaishnav S/o Shri Vinod Vaishnav, R/o Surmo Ka
Chowk,sutharwada, P.s. Kotwali, Dist. Dungarpur (Raj.).
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dalpat Singh
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vikram Sharma, PP
For Complainant : Mr. VLS Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR
ORDER
27/05/2024
This application for anticipatory bail under Section 438
Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner, in connection with FIR
No.396/2023 registered at Police Station Kotwali, Dungarpur,
District Dungarpur for the offence under Section 306 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per
prosecution, the deceased Mst.'P' committed suicide owing to the
mental trauma caused to her by the present petitioner. Drawing
attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel submitted
that as per prosecution, the engagement of the deceased was
fixed with the present petitioner on 2.6.2023 and the marriage
was fixed to be held on 04.12.2023. However, after some time of
the engagement, the petitioner started neglecting the deceased.
[2024:RJ-JD:24034] (2 of 4) [CRLMB-399/2024]
Further allegation levelled against the petitioner is that he used to
lay stress and pressure upon the deceased by asking her to bring
dowry in huge quantity.
Learned counsel submitted that owing to the differences
between the deceased and the petitioner, the petitioner decided to
break off his engagement with the deceased. Learned counsel
vehemently contended that bald allegations have been levelled
against the petitioner, without there being any iota of evidence
available on record to indicate that the petitioner by any of his
actions, instigated, abetted or intentionally aided the deceased to
commit suicide.
Reliance was placed 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:-
"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
[2024:RJ-JD:24034] (3 of 4) [CRLMB-399/2024]
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.
Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has
already joined the investigation and looking to the nature of
allegations against him, his custodial interrogation is not
necessitated in the present case. He thus implored the Court to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for
the complainant have vehemently opposed the present
anticipatory bail application.
Learned counsel for the complainant vehemently submitted
that sufficient evidence is available on record to indicate that the
petitioner used to mentally harass the deceased. Learned counsel
for the complainant submitted owing to the alleged acts of the
present petitioner, the deceased had ended her life by committing
suicide. Learned counsel for the complainant thus prayed that the
present bail application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. may be
rejected.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public
Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the
material available on record.
Having considered the rival submissions, facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the marriage of
the deceased was fixed with the present petitioner. However, due
to differences between the petitioner and the deceased, they
decided to break their relationship. In the opinion of this Court,
[2024:RJ-JD:24034] (4 of 4) [CRLMB-399/2024]
there is no prima facie evidence available on record, capable of
suggesting that the petitioner had at any time during the
subsistence of their relationship or afterwards, intended by any of
his acts abet or intentionally aid to instigate, the deceased to
commit suicide. In the prima facie opinion of this Court, the
necessary ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide
are not satisfied in the present case. Thus, without expressing any
opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to
enlarge the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the present bail application under Section 438
Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that in the event of arrest of
the petitioner- Kalpitraj Vaishnav S/o Shri Rajesh in
connection with FIR No.396/2023 registered at Police Station
Kotwali, Dungarpur, the petitioner shall be released on bail;
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
concerned investigating officer/S.H.O. on the following conditions:
(i). that the petitioner shall make himself available for
interrogation by a police officer as and when required;
(ii). that the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make
any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade
him from disclosing such facts to the court or any police
officer; and
(iii). that the petitioner shall not leave India without previous
permission of the court.
(KULDEEP MATHUR),J
83-TarunGoyal/-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
