Tripura High Court
Sri Kajal Das vs The State Of Tripura on 11 August, 2021
Page 1 of 6
HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
AGARTALA
A. B. No.55 of 2021
Sri Kajal Das.
............... Petitioner(s).
Vs.
The State of Tripura.
............... Respondent(s).
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. P.K. Biswas, Sr. Advocate.
Ms. Sangeeta Debbarma, Advocate.
For Respondent(s): Mr. Ratan Datta, Public Prosecutor.
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
ORDER
11/08/2021
Kajal Das, petitioner who is an FIR named accused in
Sonamura P.S Case No. 33 of 2021 under Sections 498A,306 and 34
IPC has filed this application for granting pre-arrest bail to him
under Section 438 Cr.P.C.
[2] Heard Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Sr. advocate appearing
for the petitioner along with Ms. Sangeeta Debbarma, advocate.
Also heard Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor representing
the State.
[3] The factual background of the case is as under:
Badal Das, elder brother of the deceased lodged a
written FIR with the Officer-in-charge of Sonamura Police Station
alleging, inter alia, that his deceased sister committed suicide at her
matrimonial home. He, however, did not state in his FIR as to how
she committed suicide. As alleged by him, his deceased sister was
severely beaten by her accused husband and other accused in-laws
in her matrimonial home on 25.03.2021. She was first brought to
Melaghar Hospital from where she was referred to AGMC and GBP
Hospital at Agartala where she died on 28.03.2021. The informant
brother of the deceased further alleged in his FIR that marriage
between the accused petitioner and his deceased sister took place
about 12 years back. During marriage his parents gave cash and
other valuables. After marriage, a son was also born to them. 6/7
years after marriage, accused husband of the deceased and his
relatives started subjecting the deceased to physical torture for
dowry and for various other reasons. Allegedly, she was denied food
for days together at her matrimonial home. Ultimately, the accused
husband of the deceased brutally assaulted her in his house on
25.03.2021 and she died in hospital on 28.03.2021. Informant
brother of the deceased further alleged in his FIR that after his sister
was admitted in hospital no information was given to him from her
matrimonial home. He got the information from other source.
[4] Based on the said FIR of the brother of the deceased,
case was registered and it was taken up for investigation by police.
[5] Mr. P. K. Biswas, learned Sr. advocate submits that
there is no material on record to justify the arrest and detention of
the accused. Learned Sr. counsel submits that the deceased wife
after 12 years of her marriage committed suicide by consuming
poison out of her frustration for which the husband cannot be held
responsible in absence of proof. Learned Sr. counsel also refers to
the order dated 3.6.2021 of the learned Sessions Judge of
Sepahijala Judicial District in Case No. BA 13 of 2021 whereby the
learned Sessions Judge granted pre-arrest bail to the other accused
in-laws of the deceased who were also booked for the said offence
on the same set of facts and materials. It is therefore, submitted by
Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. advocate that accused husband of the
deceased also deserves bail on same grounds. Relying on the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Shabbir Hussain Vrs.
State of Madhya Pradesh and others (IA No.87837 of 2017)
counsel submits that the alleged facts does not constitute an offence
under Section 306 IPC since there is no proof to suggest that
accused played any role at all to facilitate the commission of suicide.
The Apex Court in the said case by judgment and order dated
26.07.2021 has held as follows:
"In order to bring a case within the
provision of Section 306 IPC, there must be
case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the persons who is said to have
abetted the commission of suicide must have
played an active role by an act of instigation or
by doing a certain act to facilitate the
commission of the suicide.
Mere harassment without any positive
action on the part of the accused proximate to
the time of occurrence which led to the suicide
would not amount to an offence under Section
306 IPC (Amalendu Pal Vrs. State of West
Bengal: (2010) 1 SCC 707).
Abetment by a person is when a person
instigates another to do something. Instigation
can be inferred where the accused had, by his
acts or omission created such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no option
except to commit suicide."
[6] It is also contended by Mr. Biswas, learned Sr. advocate
that mere insult or use of abusive language does not constitute
abetment of suicide unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to
commit suicide are satisfied. In support of his contention counsel
has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in M. Arjunan Vrs
State Represented by its Inspector of Police: reported in
(2019) 3 SCC 315 wherein the Apex Court in para-7 of the
judgment has held as follows:
"(7) 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."
[7] Mr. Ratan Datta, learned Public Prosecutor on the other
hand vehemently opposes the bail application contending that the
FIR itself is sufficient to reject the bail application. According to Mr.
Datta, learned P.P, the informant brother has brought serious
allegation of continuous torture on his deceased sister by her in-laws
which ultimately led her to commit suicide. According to Mr. Datta,
learned P.P police statements of the neighbours as well as the
statements of the relatives of the deceased available in the case
diary have consistently supported the charge that the deceased was
continuously tortured and harassed in her matrimonial house over a
quite long period of time. According to Mr. Datta, learned P.P, the
investigation is in progress and, therefore, the release of the
accused who is the principal accused of this case on bail is most
likely to impair the investigation of the case. Counsel therefore,
urges for rejecting the bail application.
[8] I have considered the entire materials placed on record
including the up dated case diary. It is true that the inquest report
as well as the post mortem report of the deceased indicates that
there was no mark of external injury on the body of the deceased.
But, that by itself does not demolish the charge against the accused.
The FIR contains specific allegation against the accused with regard
to demand of dowry, continuous torture and victimization of the
deceased at her matrimonial home. Whether such harassment and
continuous torture led the deceased to commit suicide is a matter
for investigation. Investigation is at the primary stage. The material
witnesses including the son of the deceased are yet to be examined.
The materials which have been produced by the prosecution have
made out a good prima facie case against the accused. I have gone
through the judgments relied on by learned counsel of the petitioner
which were given in a different context and therefore, accused
cannot derive any benefit from those judgments at this stage of the
proceedings.
[9] In view of the seriousness of this offence and the
materials available on record, this court is of the view that accused
does not deserve bail at this stage. His bail application, therefore,
stands rejected.
Return the Case diary.
JUDGE
Dipankar
