JUDGMENT :

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Daya Shankar Mishra, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Abhishek Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Ved Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the informant and Sri Sunil Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State as well as perused the material placed on record.

3. The present anticipatory bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicants in Case Crime No.75 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC at Police Station-Naini, District Prayagraj with a prayer to enlarge them on anticipatory bail.

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The deceased, who happens to be the husband of the informant, is stated to be a Marine Engineer and had left his job and started doing the contract job at Prayagraj as his father had fallen ill and was bed ridden, but the said money earned used to be transferred to the account of his ailing father, as such his family was dependent on the money being given to them by his father Balram Mishra, who has subsequently expired. Out of the said wedlock, there is a five year old daughter. The deceased is stated to have committed suicide in the night of 5/6.01.2022 and the informant could reach the house of her in-laws on 07.01.2022 from Ahmedabad. The behaviour of her in-laws was not proper, as such she left her in-laws house after Terahawi of her husband and she received a WhatsApp message from the mobile of the father-in-law which was being used by her husband, whereby a suicide note was sent to her. The FIR was instituted on 19.02.2022 at Police Station Naini at Prayagraj as such.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS:

(Arguments on behalf of applicants)

5. Learned Senior Counsel has argued that the applicants were granted anticipatory bail till the submission of report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. by the Sessions Judge, Prayagraj and have not misused the opportunity granted earlier on.

6. Learned Senior Counsel has vehemently argued at Bar that no ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are fulfilled as there is no overt act assigned to the applicants and even Section 107 I.P.C. is not attracted in the present case as the applicants, who are the ladies, have not abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the co-accused Manohar Mishra has been granted regular bail by this Court vide order dated 17.07.2023 passed in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.29923 of 2023 and the very said order categorically indicates that the ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. are not fulfilled. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the applicants, being ladies, are also entitled for anticipatory bail as no purpose shall be fulfilled by sending them behind the bars.

7. Their reputation in the society shall stand tarnished and there is no likelihood of them tampering the evidence as the final report (charge-sheet) has already been submitted. They are ready to cooperate in the trial as they have already cooperated during investigation.

8. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that there is no eyewitness of the said incident. The said FIR has been lodged after a delay of more than a month, as such the said inordinate delay is also a valid ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicants.

9. Learned Senior Counsel has further stated that the judgment of this Court passed in Shivam vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2021 SCC OnLine All 264, is per-incuriam as it has not laid down any law as it is not a ratio that has to be relied, rather the reference of paragraph 43(8) is only obiter-dicta.

10. Learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court passed in the case of Kamlesh & Anr. vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr., 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1822, whereby it has been opined that a petition U/s 438 Cr.P.C. is very much maintainable even after dismissal of an application filed U/S 482 Cr.P.C.

11. Learned Senior Counsel has further placed reliance on paragraph nos.10 and 11 of the judgment of this Court passed in Criminal Misc. Anticipa