Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(UK) 17

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Rakesh Kumar Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
Anticipatory Bail Application No. 33 of 2023
Decided On : 20-01-2023

Advocates appeared:
Vikas Kumar Guglani, Advocate, Lalit Miglani, Advocate, Mamta Joshi, Advocate

The main legal point established is that anticipatory bail can be granted based on the absence of direct involvement of the applicant in the alleged offense.

Headnote:
Anticipatory Bail - Section 306 IPC - The court granted anticipatory bail to the applicant, who was the father of a co-accused involved in a case related to abetment of suicide. The court found it to be a fit case for anticipatory bail and imposed certain conditions on the applicant.
Fact of the Case:

The applicant sought anticipatory bail in a case related to abetment of suicide. The deceased had committed suicide after being threatened by a co-accused, who had established physical relations with her under false pretenses.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the applicant, being the father of the co-accused, was not named in the alleged video and considered it a fit case for granting anticipatory bail.
Issues: The main issue was whether the applicant was entitled to anticipatory bail in a case related to abetment of suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the facts of the case and the absence of the applicant's involvement in the alleged video as grounds for granting anticipatory bail.
Final Decision: The court allowed the anticipatory bail application and imposed certain conditions on the applicant in the event of arrest.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant-Rakesh Kumar Sharma seeks anticipatory bail in FIR No.05 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Learned counsel for the applicant appeared through video conferencing.

3. According to the FIR, co-accused Aman Sharma established physical relations with deceased Priyanka Kashyap under the pretext of marriage. In that connection an FIR No.88 of 2021, under Sections 376, 323 & 504 IPC was lodged, in which charge-sheet has been submitted. The FIR, in the instant case, records that after obtaining stay, co-accused Aman Sharma threatened the deceased on multiple occasions, due to which, on 07.01.2023, the deceased committed suicide and she also left her video.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that applicant is a father of co-accused Aman Sharma. He has not been named in the alleged video.

5. Learned State Counsel would submit that, as per instructions, the applicant is not named in the video. He would submit that the State does not propose to file any objections separately now.

6. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court is of the view that this is a fit case for anticipatory bail. The instant anticipatory bail application deserves to be allowed.

7. The anticipatory bail application is allowed.

8. In the eventuality of arrest, the applicant shall be enlarged on bail on his furnishing the personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer ('IO'). In addition to it, the applicant shall also comply with the following conditions:-

(i) The applicant shall co-operate with the investigation.

(ii) The applicant shall not approach any witness in any manner, whatsoever.

(iii) The applicant shall not leave the country without prior permission of the concerned court.

(iv) The applicant shall deposit his passport with the Investigating Officer ('IO'). The passport may only be returned by the order of the court concerned. In case the applicant do not has passport, he shall give an undertaking to that effect to the IO.

(v) The applicant shall also give an undertaking on (i), (ii) & (iii) above.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document