Point of Law: There is no answer as to why suicides occur because it is impossible to ever fully comprehend or analyze what goes on inside a person’s mind. Suicidal ideation and behaviors in human beings are complex and multifaceted. Human beings by their very intrinsic nature of being individualistic react and behave differently in different situations because of the personal meaning they add to each event, thus accounting for individual vulnerability to suicide.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. PANIGRAHI, J.

1. The present petitioner, who is in custody, has filed the instant bail application under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Chhendipada P.S. Case No. 199 of 2020 corresponding to C.T. (S) Case No. 11 of 2021 which is now pending before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Angul. The petitioner herein is the accused in connection with alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 306 of the I.P.C. Prior to the instant application, the petitioner also approached the learned Sessions Judge, Angul, vide Bail Application No. 66 of 2021 which was rejected on 23.02.2021.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the present case are that one Artatrana Sahu lodged an FIR on 17.06.2020 at 5.00 P.M. before the Chhendipada P.S. stating that his daughter, namely Puspanjali (now deceased) had left her home on 14.06.2020 saying that she had to attend nature’s call at a nearby river. However, unfortunately, she did not return. The complainant searched for his daughter in the vicinity as well as relatives houses but could not find her. On 17.06.2020 at 12 noon, the body of the deceased was found hanging from a tree on the said river bank. Pursuant to filing of the FIR, the Investigating Officer commenced investigation. The post mortem report revealed that the cause of death was asphyxia as a result of hanging and in the absence of any signs of force, sexual assault, the death was opined to be suicidal in nature. It was also noted that the “whole body was distinctively decomposed” to the extent that the body was covered with maggots, flies and larva. A chiffon dupatta belonging to the deceased was used for the hanging which left a V shaped ligature mark around her neck. No other discernible marks or injuries were found on the body of the deceased. During the course of investigation, a phone was recovered which was belonging to the deceased from which it was found that three numbers were frequently contacted. The three numbers belonged to the present petitioner, one Sanjay Behera and one Sunil Dehury. It is relevant to note here that Sanjay Behera has been absconding since then and a non-bailable warrant has been issued against him. Acting purely on suspicion and in the light of uncovering of facts from a few people of the area, it was suspected that the petitioner and the deceased had probably shared a relationship. Thereafter, the present petitioner was arrested and forwarded to judicial custody on 06.07.2020 for allegedly abetting the suicide of the deceased.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no prima-facie case made out against the present petitioner. The petitioner is in no way directly connected to the offences and has been falsely implicated in the matter. It was also submitted that no incriminating material is available against the petitioner and, therefore, he should not be kept in custody. In the absence of any direct evidence to the contrary and keeping in mind that on the date of occurrence the petitioner was not present in the village, the petitioner is liable to be released on bail. It was also contended that charge-sheet has been submitted and there is no chance of the petitioner tampering with any evidence.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the State opposed the bail application and prayed for its rejection by contending that the petitioner is the prime accused who compelled the victim to commit suicide and exploited her by falsely assuring of their marriage.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It becomes necessary, at this juncture, to examine the scope of bail in cases involving Section 306 of the I.P.C. Recently the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dataram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 3 SCC 22 held that the freedom of an individual cannot be curtailed for indefinite period, especially when his/her guilt is yet to be proved. It has further held in the aforesaid judgment that a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty. Su