Point of Law: Bail rejected - Abetment of suicide - There is no doubt that liberty is important, even that of a person charged with crime but it is important for the courts to recognise potential threat to life and liberty of victims/witnesses, if such accused is released on bail.

JUDGMENT :

Vikas Kunvar Srivastav, J.

1. The case is called out through video conferencing.

2. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant Sri Jitendra Singh, Advocate and learned A.G.A. for the State Sri Prem Prakash, Advocate are connected through video conferencing in virtual hearing of the case.

3. The present bail-application is moved on behalf of accused-applicant-Shameem Ahmad, who is involved in Case Crime No.209 of 2020, under Sections 306/511/109/506/504 of I.P.C., registered at Police Station Hussainganj, District Lucknow.

4. Reading over the first information report lodged on 20.10.2020, learned counsel for the bail applicant submits the prosecution case, as emerging from the first information report and the statements of the witnesses that the informant-wife of the deceased, who belongs to Kolkata (West Bengal), resides from 10-12 years as a tenant in House No.155, Diamond Dairy, Udaiganj, District Lucknow which is owned by one Zaved Khan, the co-accused. The landlord Zaved Khan wanted them to vacate the house, therefore, her husband-the deceased (Surendra Chakraborty) filed a suit against him for harassing them. On 19.10.2020 in the afternoon, Zaved Khan came to the house, started abusing her husband in filthy language and asked him to vacate the house. When her husband told him his being in financial trouble and inability to vacate the house, the landlord Zaved Khan scoldingly asked him to set himself ablazed and die, if he is not able to vacate the accommodation. However, on prayer and request made by the complainant and other people, the landlord Zaved Khan went back. Afterwards, her husband under humiliation became depressed and so sad that started thinking about suicide.

5. It has been further alleged that journalists Shamim (the present accused-applicant) and Naushad Ahmad (the co-accused), contacted her husband (deceased) and induced him to set himself ablazed into fire just in front of "Vidhan Sabha Bhawan" so that they may filmed the incident by videography and telecast the same on television. If it happens, the matter, so as planned will get highlighted and no one will force him to evict him from his house. Under the aforesaid inducement, given by both the accused i.e. the accused-applicant-Shamim and co-accused, Naushad Ahmad brought her husband (the deceased) in front of "Vidhan Sabha Bhawan", where her husband, as induced and planned, poured oil on him and lit fire, the accused journalists were making video of the incident. The policemen present there, ran to save her husband by covering him with a blanket and took him to a hospital where he subsequently died on 24.10.2020.

6. Learned counsel for the bail-applicant in the above context argued that after registering first information report, police started investigation and the statements of complainant and witnesses were recorded, wherein prosecution finds no support. Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant and the complainant do not know each other neither they have any relation nor he is any beneficiary, if the said house is vacated, the landlord Zaved Khan will only be benefited.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that the name of present accused-applicant has been arrayed in the column of accused only when he tried to help the deceased on the spot of incident with the help of police subsequently made a video for evidence as he is a journalist by profession and passing thereby at the time of incident. Learned counsel further submitted that it is a settled principle of law that a passing reference been made against any person would not be sufficient to invite the penalty under the provisions of Section 306 I.P.C.

8. Learned counsel further submitted that in order to constitute abatement for suicide, there must be course of conduct or any such actions of intentionally aiding or facilitating another person to end life but the perusal of the F.I.R. does not disclose any such evidence or allegation which could invite the penalty under Section 306 of t