Back
2022 Supreme(UK) 408
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Ravindra Maithani, J.
Reena Begum - Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand - Respondent
First Bail Application No. 2620 of 2022
Decided On : 23-12-2022
Deep Prakash Bhatt, Advocate, V.S. Rathore, Advocate, Lalit Sharma, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of evidence to support allegations of abetment of suicide and the court's discretion to grant bail based on the lack of such evidence.
Headnote:
Abetment - Bail Application - The court granted bail to the applicant, who was accused of abetting suicide, based on the lack of evidence supporting the allegations and the view that the applicant deserved to be enlarged on bail.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant was in judicial custody under Section 306 IPC for allegedly abetting suicide. The deceased was allegedly trapped and blackmailed by the applicant and co-accused, leading to the demand for money and eventual suicide.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence of abetment of suicide by the applicant and that the case was fit for bail, ultimately granting bail to the applicant.
Issues: The issues revolved around the allegations of abetment of suicide and honey trapping, as well as the lack of material recovered during the investigation supporting the claims.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the lack of evidence indicating abetment of suicide and the absence of material recovered during the investigation suggesting honey trapping.
Final Decision: The bail application was allowed, and the applicant was ordered to be released on bail upon executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties.
JUDGMENT
Ravindra Maithani, J. - Applicant-Reena Begum is in judicial custody in FIR No. 0265 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought her release on bail.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the FIR, the applicant and co-accused trapped the deceased and thereafter, blackmailing. They demanded money from the deceased. He did pay about Rs. 4,50,000/-, but still Rs.5,00,000/-was demanded which he could not give and committed suicide.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that no abetment of suicide was ever done by the applicant. Applicant is a woman.
5. Learned counsel for the informant would submit that it is a case of honey trapping. The deceased was trapped by the applicant and co-accused, Nisha. The deceased made a video recording and levelled allegations against the applicant and co-accused.
6. The Court wanted to know as to what is the material recovered during the investigation suggesting that deceased was honey trapped.
7. Learned State Counsel could not indicate any such material.
8. Learned State Counsel would submit that there is a video recording of the deceased prior to his death.
9. Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is a case fit for bail and the applicant deserves to be enlarged on bail.
10. The bail application is allowed.
11. Let the applicant be released on bail, on her executing a personal bond and furnishing two reliable sureties, each of the like amount, to the satisfaction of the court concerned.
