HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP MATHUR, J
ROOP SINGH – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF RAJASTHAN – Respondent
CRLMB / 1972 / 2025
(A) BNSS - Section 483 - Bail application - The petitioner, arrested under F.I.R. No.425/2024 for an offence under Section 108 of BNS, sought bail citing co-accused's release on bail and the lengthy trial process - The court noted the absence of direct evidence of mens rea for abetment of suicide - Bail granted. (Paras 9, 10)
(B) Judicial Custody - The petitioner, a pregnant woman, has been in custody since 24.12.2024, and the trial is expected to take a long time - The court considered these factors in granting bail. (Paras 5, 10)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner is accused of abetting the suicide of Meena Bai, who allegedly consumed rat poison due to the petitioner’s behavior. The co-accused has been granted bail.
Findings of Court:
The court found no direct evidence of intention to aid or instigate the deceased's suicide, leading to the decision to grant bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner’s behavior constituted abetment of suicide and the implications of co-accused being granted bail.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that without direct evidence of mens rea, the petitioner could not be held liable for abetment, and the lengthy trial justified bail.
Result: Bail application allowed.
ORDER :
KULDEEP MATHUR, J.
This application for bail under Section 483 of BNSS (439 Cr.P.C.) has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.425/2024 registered at Police Station Gogunda, District Udaipur, for offence under Section 108 of BNS.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the co-accused Vidhya Bai (S. B. Cr. Misc.Bail Application No.243/2025) has already been enlarged on bail by this Court vide order dated 28.01.2025. Learned counsel submitted that the co-accused of the present petitioner is not worse than the above named co-accused person who has already been enlarged on bail.
3. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody; challan has already 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.
4. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the bail application. However, he was not in a position to refute the fact that the co-accused Vidhya Devi has already been enlarged on bail.
5. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the material available on record.
6. The order dated 28.01.2025 passed by this Court while granting bail to the co-accused Vidhya Bai is reproduced herein below for ready reference:
“1. This application for bail under Section 483 BNSS has been filed by the petitioner who has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.425/2024 registered at Police Station Gogunda, Dist. Udaipur, for the offences under Section 108 of BNS.
2. As per the prosecution, the deceased- Meena Bai committed suicide by consuming Rat poison due to bad behaviour of the present petitioner as well as the co-accused Roop Sngh.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the deceased- Meena Bai who is a close relative of the present petitioner felt harassed/ humiliated by her bad behaviour to such an extent that her self-esteemed and self-respect had been tarnished. Learned counsel further submitted that as per the prosecution, the petitioner due to her behaviour has abetted the deceased to commit suicide
4. Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel submitted that though there is an allegation of petitioner misbehaving with the deceased but the same by itself not amount to the offence of abetment against the present petitioner.
5. Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner who is a female and having seven months pregnancy is in judicial custody since 24.12.2024 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. This Court looking to the nature of allegations against the present petitioner vide order dated 10.01.2025 directed the learned Public Prosecutor to call for the case diary. In compliance of this Court’s order dated 10.01.2025, the case diary has been produced by the learned Public Prosecutor.
9. This Court, on a careful perusal of the case diary, prima facie finds that though there is a possibility of the petitioner misbehaving or using abusive language towards the deceased but there is no direct evidence available on record suggesting that the petitioner had mens rea or intention to aid or instigate or otherwise facilitate the deceased to commit suicide. Thus, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.
10. Consequently, the bail application under Section 483 BNSS is allowed. It is ordered that the accused-petitioner Vidhya Bai W/o Shri Rup Singh arrested in connection with F.I.R. No.425/2024 registered at Police Station Gogunda, Dist. Udaipur, shall be released on bail, if not wanted in any other case, provided she furnishes a pers
The absence of direct evidence of mens rea precludes liability for abetment of suicide, justifying bail for the accused.
Bail may be granted when the accused has not played an active role in the alleged crime and the trial is expected to be lengthy.
Bail may be granted when investigation is complete and no risk of influencing witnesses exists, emphasizing case-specific evaluation.
The court emphasized that when co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioners, considering the lengthy trial duration.
The court emphasized that if co-accused are granted bail under similar circumstances, the same should apply to the petitioner unless distinguishable factors exist.
Bail granted due to lack of evidence from material witnesses and absence of criminal antecedents, emphasizing judicial discretion in bail applications.
Bail may be granted if the accused is in judicial custody, the trial will take a long time, and there is no risk of influencing witnesses.
The court ruled that lack of evidence for intent to instigate suicide justifies granting bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C.
Bail can be granted when investigation is complete and co-accused have received bail, despite serious allegations.
The absence of mens rea or intention to instigate suicide under Section 306 IPC justifies the grant of bail.
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.