The absence of direct evidence of instigation and significant delay in filing the FIR justified granting bail to the petitioner.

ORDER :

(KULDEEP MATHUR, J.)

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.238/2024 registered at Police Station Kapasan, Dist. Chittorgarh, for the offence under Section 306 of IPC.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case. Learned counsel submitted that the deceased “Mst.A” committed suicide on 3.10.2023 by hanging herself. Learned counsel submitted that the post-mortem of the deceased was conducted on 4.10.2023, the FIR against the present petitioner with false allegations has been lodged on 29.8.2024 and the petitioner thereupon has been sent in judicial custody on 11.12.2024. Learned counsel vehemently argued that the necessary elements of the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC are not available in the present case. There is nothing on record to indicate that the petitioner has abetted or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Except for the alleged commission of sexual assault, the specific date and time thereof has not been disclosed, nothing has been brought out by the prosecution to show that the petitioner had provoked, incited or induced the deceased to commit suicide.

3. Learned counsel submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is that he had committed sexual assault upon the deceased who was already married and thereafter he was causing mental harassment to her by telling her that if she would not establish physical relations with him, he would disclose the factum of he committing sexual assault upon her, to her husband and family members.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the material collected by the investigating agency during the course of investigation clearly indicates that even after marriage, the deceased was in constant touch with the present petitioner and used to make him frequent phone calls.

5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody, challan against him has been filed and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail may be granted to the accused-petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has vehemently opposed the bail application.

7. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.

8. Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case, this Court prima facie finds that in the present case, the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself on 3.10.2023; the FIR has been lodged on 29.8.2024 i.e. almost after 10 months of the incident. This Court also finds that the material available on record prima facie indicates that the deceased was in constant touch with the present petitioner through mobile; no direct evidence is available on record to indicate that the petitioner by any of his acts or inactions, intended or instigated the deceased to commit suicide. This Court also prima facie finds that 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 by this Court. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

9. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Rahul S/o Shri Basantilal arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.238/2024 registered at Police Station Kapasan, Dist. Chittorgarh, 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.

10. It is however, made clear th