Uttarakhand High Court
BA1/655/2025 on 11 June, 2025
Office Notes,
reports, orders or
proceedings or
No Date COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
directions and
Registrar's order
with Signatures
BA1 No. 655 of 2025
Hon'ble Alok Mahra, J.
Mr. Shashi Kant Shandilya, learned
counsel for the applicant.
2. Mr. Akshay Latwal, learned A.G.A. for
the State.
3. The applicant - Sunny Pal, who is in
judicial custody in connection with FIR/Case
Crime No. 265 of 2024, under Sections 80(2),
85 of B.N.S. and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act,
registered at P.S.- Sahaspur, District
Dehradun, has sought his release on bail.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant has been falsely
implicated in the case and is languishing in jail
since 08.09.024; the applicant is husband of
the deceased; he has never demanded dowry;
the daughter of the complainant has always
been treated with full respect and has never
been treated with any physical or mental
cruelty; the applicant has been made an
accused on the basis of surmises and
conjectures; there is no independent witness
of the incident and the deceased committed
suicide because she was not happy with the
marriage and her marriage was solemnized
against her wishes. Learned counsel further
submits that there are no specific allegations
levelled against the applicant in the FIR.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant has
relied upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Prakash and Others
Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another,
reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3835.
Paragraph 22 and 28 of the judgment is
extracted hereinbelow:-
"22. It could thus be seen that this Court observed that in
cases of alleged abetment of suicide, there must be a proof
of direct or indirect act(s) of incitement to the commission
of suicide. It has been held that since the cause of suicide
particularly in the context of the offence of abetment of
suicide involves multifaceted and complex attributes of
human behaviour, the court would be looking for cogent
and convincing proof of the act(s) of incitement to the
commission of suicide. This Court further observed that a
mere allegation of harassment of the deceased by another
person would not suffice unless there is such action on the
part of the accused which compels the person to commit
suicide. This Court also emphasised that such an offending
action ought to be proximate to the time of occurrence. It
was further clarified that the question of mens rea on the
part of the accused in such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the accused. It
was further held that if the acts and deeds are only of such
nature where the accused intended nothing more than
harassment or a snap-show of anger, a particular case
may fall short of the offence of abetment of suicide,
however, if the accused kept on irritating or annoying the
deceased by words or deeds until the deceased reacted or
was provoked, a particular case may be that of abetment
of suicide. This Court held that owing to the fact that the
human mind could be affected and could react in myriad
ways and that similar actions are dealt with differently by
different persons, each case is required to be dealt with its
own facts and circumstances."
"28. This Court in the case of Naresh Kumar v. State of
Haryana, observed as follows:-
"20. This Court in Mariano Anto Bruno v. State
[Mariano Anto Bruno v. State, (2023) 15 SCC 560 :
2022 SCC OnLine SC 1387] , after referring to the
abovereferred decisions rendered in context of
culpability under Section 306IPC observed as under :
(SCC para 45)
"45. ... It is also to be borne in mind that in cases of
alleged abetment of suicide, there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission
of suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment
without there being any positive action
proximate to the time of occurrence on the part
of the accused which led or compelled the
person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable."
7. Per contra, learned State Counsel
vehemently opposed the bail.
8. Having considered the submissions,
under the facts and circumstances of the case,
this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for
bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged
on bail.
9. Accordingly, the bail application is
allowed.
10. Let the applicant be released on bail on
his executing a personal bond and furnishing
two reliable sureties each of the like amount,
to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
(Alok Mahra J.)
11.06.2025
Ujjwal
