HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
HANSRAJ - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN - Respondent
CRLMB / 11561 / 2024
Decided On : 03-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 498-A and 306 - Bail application filed by the petitioner arrested for offences under IPC - Allegations of abetment of suicide due to matrimonial discord - Essential ingredients of Section 306 IPC not established - No mens rea or intention to aid or instigate the deceased found - Petitioner in judicial custody, investigation completed - Bail granted with conditions. (Paras 1, 3, 6, 7)
(B) Bail - Criteria for granting bail - Court considers the nature of allegations, evidence, and possibility of influencing witnesses - No apprehension shown by prosecution regarding the petitioner influencing witnesses or fleeing. (Paras 6, 7)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of causing the suicide of the deceased due to marital discord and dowry demands. The prosecution claims the petitioner instigated the deceased, but no direct evidence supports this claim. The petitioner is in judicial custody, and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
Findings of Court:
The court found no prima facie evidence of mens rea or intention to instigate suicide. The investigation was complete, and the prosecution did not demonstrate any risk of the petitioner influencing witnesses or fleeing.
Issues: The main issues were whether the petitioner had the intention to instigate the deceased's suicide and the sufficiency of evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without specific evidence of dowry demands or mens rea, the petitioner should be granted bail, emphasizing that the findings were limited to the bail application context.
Result: Bail application allowed.
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
1.This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.140/2024 registered at Police Station Chattargarh, Dist. Bikaner, for the offences under Sections 498-A and 306 of IPC.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties at Bar. Perused the material available on record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per the prosecution, the deceased owing to her matrimonial discord with the present petitioner on 19.05.2024, committed suicide. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Drawing attention of the Court towards the challan papers, learned counsel submitted that the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC i.e. (i) the abettment, (ii) the intention of the deceased to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide are not present in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that there is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner had mens rea or intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
4. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail application.
6. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that though as per the prosecution, the deceased committed suicide due to the continuous dowry demand made by the petitioner but prima facie no specific details with regard to the dowry demand are available on record of the case. This Court also prima facie finds that there is no direct evidence available on record indicating that the petitioner had any mens rea or intention to aid or instigate the deceased to commit suicide. This Court also prima facie finds that the petitioner is in judicial custody; the investigation against the petitioner has already been completed and the prosecution has not shown any apprehension of petitioner influencing the material prosecution witnesses of the case or fleeing away from justice, in case he is enlarged on bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
7. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Hansraj S/o Magha Ram arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.140/2024 registered at Police Station Chattargarh, Dist. Bikaner, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided he furnishes a personal bond of Rs.50,000/- and two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each, to the satisfaction of learned trial court, for his appearance before that court on each & every date of hearing and whenever called upon to do so till completion of the trial.
8. It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.
The absence of mens rea or intention to instigate suicide under Section 306 IPC justifies the grant of bail.
The court ruled that lack of evidence for intent to instigate suicide justifies granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
The absence of direct evidence of instigation and significant delay in filing the FIR justified granting bail to the petitioner.
The court found no direct evidence of intention to instigate suicide, allowing bail as essential ingredients of abetment were absent.
The court granted bail based on the lack of support from key prosecution witnesses, indicating a weak case against the petitioner.
The absence of direct evidence of mens rea precludes liability for abetment of suicide, justifying bail for the accused.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.