The court ruled that demands for loan repayment do not constitute instigation to commit suicide under IPC, emphasizing the necessity of proximity in actions leading to such an act.

ORAL ORDER

1. By way of the present petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973, the petitioner has prayed to release him on anticipatory bail in case of his arrest in connection with the FIR registered as C.R.No.11195055240042 of 2024 registered with Vadgam Police Station, Banaskantha.

2. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has not played any role in instigating the victim to commit suicide. It is submitted that even if FIR is taken as genuine and correct on its face, it does not constitute offence under section 107 of IPC which is essential for putting charge of section 306 of IPC against the accused. According to FIR, victim has taken loan of Rs.1 lakh from the petitioner and the petitioner insisted for getting the loan amount, that are the allegations levelled against the petitioner. Apart from it, no other allegations are levelled against the petitioner. It is submitted that since no offence is made out under section 107 of IPC , being essential to put charge of offence under section 306 of IPC , the petitioner may be enlarged on anticipatory bail. It is submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in investigation and since petitioner is residing in Banaskantha, there is no flight-risk. Therefore, it is submitted that the petition may be allowed.

3. On the other hand, objecting bail application, learned APP would submit that suicide note is found, it indicates name of the petitioner and it is stated that petitioner was constantly asking for repayment of amount, deceased was fade up and therefore, committed suicide. Further, FIR has been given by the deceased after consuming poison and that assumes importance. It is submitted that FIR, Dying Declaration and suicide note are in same line and indicating name of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner may not be granted anticipatory bail.

4. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having gone through FIR, what appears that the petitioner had lent Rs.1 lakh to the victim. Two other persons have also lent amount of Rs.2 lakh. Total Rs.3 lakhs were lent to the victim, out of which he purchased 9 cows worth Rs.2.75 lakh. Out of 9 cows, 7 died. Due to this aspect, deceased was not in position to repay the amount. The petitioner was insisting for high rate of interest as well as amount which was borrowed by the victim. In persuade of such, the deceased committed suicide.

5. At this juncture, I may refer to decision in case of Mohit Singhal & Anr. vs. The State of Uttarakhand & Ors., rendered in Criminal Appeal No.3578 of 2023 by the Hon’ble Apex Court in regards to allegation of committal of suicide for demanding money and for the offence under Section 306 of the IPC following view is taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Paragraph 7 to 10 reads thus:

“7. The suicide note records that the third respondent had borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/-. According to the deceased, he had paid more than half of the amount to Sandeep. The suicide note records that as he could not pay the rest of the money, the first appellant came to his house and started abusing him. He stated that the first appellant had assaulted him, and therefore, he complained to the police. He further noted that the business of giving money on interest was prospering. He stated that the third respondent is not a prudent woman, and due to her habit of intoxication and due to her conduct, she got trapped in this. In the suicide note, it is further stated that the first appellant has made his life a hell.

8. According to the complaint of the third respondent, the incident in her shop of the first appellant threatening and assault