Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
KRISHAN PAHAL, J.
Saurabh Meena - Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. - Respondent
Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.39053 of 2024
Decided on : 20-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 323, 306, 376 - Bail application - Applicant seeks bail in a case involving allegations of abetment of suicide and other serious charges - The court found no direct overt act attributed to the applicant that would constitute abetment of suicide, emphasizing the need for cogent proof of incitement. (Paras 30, 34, 38)
(B) Presumption of Innocence - The principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty is fundamental to the bail process, with bail being the rule and imprisonment the exception. (Paras 29, 31)
(C) Conditions for Bail - The court laid down conditions for bail, including non-tampering with evidence and presence at trial proceedings. (Paras 39, 40)
Facts of the case:
The applicant is accused of abetting the suicide of the informant's daughter, who was pregnant and allegedly coerced into aborting her fetus. The FIR was filed after her death, with claims of physical and emotional abuse by the applicant. (Paras 5, 6, 35)
Findings of Court:
The court found insufficient evidence to support the charge of abetment of suicide, noting the absence of direct acts by the applicant that would compel the deceased to take her life. (Paras 34, 38)
Issues: The main issues included whether the applicant's actions constituted abetment of suicide and the sufficiency of evidence against him. (Paras 34, 36)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment; there must be clear evidence of incitement to suicide. (Paras 34, 36)
Result: Bail application allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. allegations of abetment (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. defense claims innocence (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 3. post-mortem findings (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
JUDGMENT :
Krishan Pahal, J.
1. List has been revised.
2. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of Sri Ganga Bhushan Mishra, learned counsel for the informant as well as Sri Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No.308 of 2024, under Sections 323, 313, 376 and 306 I.P.C., Police Station Sector-39, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during the pendency of trial.
PROSECUTION STORY:
4. The applicant is stated to have called the informant and stated that his daughter is dead in his house, as such, the informant rushed all the way from Aligarh to Noida.
5. The FIR was instituted by the informant with the allegations that the deceased person was pregnant at that time and she had got her fetus aborted at the behest of the applicant.
6. There are other allegations against the applicant of having asked the deceased person to sell her house and they both shall buy a property in their joint names. The applicant used to even ask the deceased to sell her car. There are allegations that the applicant used to misbehave with the deceased person and even used to beat her up.
7. The applicant had committed the murder of the daughter of the informant, as such, the FIR was instituted by him on 26.05.2024.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPLICANT:
8. The applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case.
9. Initially, the FIR was instituted under Sections 302, 323, 313 and 376 I.P.C., but subsequently after thorough investigation, the final report (charge-sheet) has been filed under Sections 376, 306, 323 and 313 I.P.C. only and Section 302 I.P.C. has been converted to Section 306 I.P.C.
10. Prior to the institution of the FIR, the inquest proceedings was already complete. The inquest proceedings was taken up on 25.05.2024 only and was completed by 9:10 p.m. the same night.
11. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was done on the next day i.e. on 26.05.2024 at 4:30 p.m.
12. The suicide note of the deceased person does not indicate any ingredients of Section 306 I.P.C. as there is not an inkling of a word against the applicant having abetted the deceased to commit suicide. No overt act has been assigned to him.
13. Much reliance has been placed on the statement of a common friend, namely, Rudrika Sharma, who has categorically stated that the applicant had called her on the date of incident itself and had informed her that the deceased person had closed the door and is not opening it. After much persuasion, the door could be broke open with the help of guard and security officer of the society.
14. The statements of the said guard and security officer corroborate the said statement of the accused that the door of the room of deceased was broke opon by them.
15. It is a clear-cut case of suicide as in the autopsy report, the doctor has opined that the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of ante-mortem hanging. The allegation of having committed the murder stands falsified.
16. Several other submissions have been made on behalf of the applicant to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against him. The circumstances which, as per counsel, led to the false implication of the applicant have also been touched upon at length.
17. There is no criminal history of the applicant. The applicant is languishing in jail since 26.05.2024 and is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail.
ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF STATE/INFORMANT:
18. The bail application has been opposed on the ground that it is a clear-cut case where the applicant has used his clout as
The court emphasized that mere allegations of harassment are insufficient for abetment of suicide; clear evidence of incitement is required.
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; the prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt for bail denial.
To establish abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC, clear evidence of instigation or encouragement by the accused is required, which was absent in this case.
Point of law : The expression “abetment” has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any ....
Bail is a rule and imprisonment is an exception; presumption of innocence must be upheld unless proven guilty.
powers of the Court while considering bail application as “we are of the opinion that while it is true that Article 21 is of great importance because it enshrines the fundamental right to individual ....
The judgment emphasizes the need for clear evidence of instigation or active facilitation to establish guilt in cases of abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
