The main legal point established in the judgment is that demands for repayment of money, without evidence of instigation or mens rea, do not constitute abetment for suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Criminal Law - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 439(2) - INSC 7613, (1995) 1 SCC 349, (1996) 4 SCC 693, (2018) 16 SCC 511 - The court discussed the legal provisions related to the cancellation of bail and the definition of abetment for suicide under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The court emphasized the need for overwhelming circumstances to cancel bail and the requirement of mens rea for instigation to commit suicide.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner State sought to quash the anticipatory bail granted to the respondents accused, who were alleged to have harassed and threatened the deceased, leading to his suicide. The court analyzed the allegations and the grounds for granting anticipatory bail.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the allegations of harassment and threats did not amount to abetment for suicide under Section 306 of the IPC. It noted that the deceased's son was the borrower of the money, and there was no evidence of instigation or mens rea on the part of the accused to push the deceased to commit suicide.
Issues: The key issue was whether the allegations of harassment and threats constituted abetment for suicide, warranting the cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demands for repayment of money, even if aggressive, did not amount to instigation for suicide. It emphasized the need for mens rea and close proximity of instigation to the act of suicide to establish abetment under Section 306 of the IPC.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petitions seeking to quash the anticipatory bail, finding that the lower court had properly exercised its discretion in granting bail based on the lack of evidence for abetment of suicide.

ORDER :

By way of the present petitions under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the petitioner State has prayed to quash and set aside the order dated 14/06/2023 and 03/07/2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Criminal Misc. Application No.2126, 2212 and 2235 of 2023, whereby the learned Session Judge has granted anticipatory bail granted to the respondents – original accused.

2. Since the issue involved in the petition is common, they are heard and decided together by this common oral order.

3. It is the case of the complainant that the nephew of the complainant is running a company namely Vriks Telecom Private Limited in Ahmedabad and the deceased who is the brother of the complainant used to assist his son in running the said company. It is also alleged in the complaint that the accused conspired together and with an intention to defraud the nephew of the complainant, the accused persons offered an unsecured loan to the nephew of the complainant and accordingly, transferred a total sum of Rs. 25,39,45,319/- in the account of the company. It is also alleged in the complaint that the nephew of the complainant paid Rs.38,20,97,000/- to the accused persons as a repayment of the principal loan amount alongwith interest and over and above and the accused persons used to threaten the nephew of the complainant and the deceased and his family members. Thereafter, the accused persons threatened the nephew of the complainant that he is supposed to pay Rs.3,37,50,000/- as the remaining repayment of loan and for that as well, the accused persons started threatening the nephew of the complainant through telephone as well as physically and subsequently, the deceased told the complainant that he was not able to bear the stress of the threats from the accused persons, and hence, on 21.05.2023, the deceased was in Dhandhuka when he went to a farm on the border of Chharodiya village and the deceased had committed suicide by hanging himself and upon investigation, the complainant found that there was a video of the deceased in the phone of the deceased where in the deceased had stated that he is taking this step due to the harassment by the accused persons. It is also alleged that the complainant found three papers from the car of the deceased wherein two letters were hand written and the third was typed wherein the deceased had mentioned that he was tired of the harassment by the accused and that is why he took this step. Later on the deceased took to the hospital wherein he was declared dead and then the impugned FIR came to be filed.

4. Upon filing of the FIR, the application seeking pre-arrest bail is filed by the respondents-accused and learned Court below granted the said applications which has been challenged in these petitions.

5. Heard learned APP for the applicant – State of Gujarat.

6. In Bhagwan Singh v Dilip Kumar @ Deepu @ Depak reported in 2023 INSC 7613, the Hon’ble Apex Court after considering judgment in case of Dolat Ram v State of Haryana, (1995) 1 SCC 349; Kashmira Singh v Duman Singh, (1996) 4 SCC 693 and X v State of Telangana, (2018) 16 SCC 511, held as follows:

(1995) 1 SCC 349

(1996) 4 SCC 693

(2018) 16 SCC 511

7. Learned APP would submit that the learned Court below has granted anticipatory bail in a serious offence on irrelevant consideration and on untenable grounds. He would further submit that in spite of believing that there was harassment, cru

Click Here to Read the rest of this document