The Gujarat High Court was hearing an appeal against the Order rejecting bail, passed by the Sessions Judge.
Facts:
The appellant had filed an application before the court of Additional Sessions Judge, requesting to enlarge the appellant on regular bail on account of offence registered u/s. 306, 387, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and u/s. 3(1)(r), 3(1-s), 3(2)(5-a) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocity) Act, 1989, wherein the Additional Sessions Judge had rejected the application. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed an appeal in the High Court.
Appellant’s case
The appellant’s submission was that he was wrongly involved in the offence by the Investigating Agency. It was further submitted that the complaint has been filed belatedly without any explanation. That, prima facie offence under Section 306 is made out and there is no act of abetment remotely found with respect to the offence alleged against the present appellant. That, custodial interrogation of the appellant is already concluded and therefore, further detention of the appellant may not be warranted. Hence, it was requested by the appellant to quash and set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge.
Respondent’s case
The respondent-State strongly objected the arguments advanced by the appellant submitting that continuous threat was given to the deceased by the present appellant for involving in a false case. That, deceased had informed about the same to the complainant and her daughter before committing suicide by hanging himself with fan. That, appellant has antecedents registered under various Sections of the IPC and the Atrocities Act. That, on account of physical and mental harassment by the present appellant, deceased had earlier tried to commit suicide by way of taking poisonous medicines and was hospitalized. That, looking to the gravity of the offence and the sentence likely to be imposed upon the appellant, discretion may not be exercised in favour of the appellant by releasing him on bail as charge sheet is not filed and investigation is in progress. Hence, it was requested to dismiss present appeal.
High Court’s observations
The HC noted that the deceased was requested by present appellant to be a witness in a previous atrocities offence registered and relief of ₹25,000/- was to be received from the Government. Out of this amount, ₹15,000/- was returned back by the deceased to the present appellant and remaining amount was kept by the deceased. One blank cheque was taken by the present appellant from the deceased and thereafter, it was deposited with the bank and was bounced. Therefore, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was registered by the present appellant against the deceased. Appellant was requested by the deceased to settle the issue but appellant didn’t agree, and when they were meeting, threat was given by the present appellant to involve him in a false case. This fact was disclosed by the deceased to the complainant and his sister and who alleged that on account of constant tension, deceased had committed suicide.
It was observed by the High Court that,
“To attract the ingredients of abetment, intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide is necessary under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code. There has to be a clear mens rea to commit offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which lead the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that that he committed suicide.”
Thus, the bench concluded that “from the police papers produced on record, prima facie there is no intention to push the deceased to commit suicide. As both the sides have taken their legal actions permissible under the law. Filing of a complaint by the present appellant under Section 138 of the NI Act against the deceased, issuing notice by the competent court cannot be considered to attract an offence under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code.”
High Court held:
The High Court held that the considering the peculiar facts of the case, the appeal deserved consideration and was accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge was quashed and set aside and the appellant was ordered to be enlarged on regular bail on furnishing a bond of ₹10,000/- with one surety.
Bench: Justice B.N. Karia
Case Title: Rahul Ranabhai Dangar v. State of Gujarat
Case Details: R/CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 318 of 2020
Counsel for Appellant: Adv. Ashish M Dagli
Counsels for Respondents: Adv. Hardik H Dave, Adv. MH Bhatt
Read the Order:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
