Anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely based on allegations without sufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, and second applications can be maintained if new grounds arise.

Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - Section 482 - Anticipatory bail - Applicants sought anticipatory bail in connection with offences under Section 306 of IPC - Court allowed the applications on the basis of insufficient evidence linking applicants to the deceased's suicide - Key considerations included the absence of direct allegations and the context of prior disputes between parties. (Paras 2, 6, 12)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court noted that the application for anticipatory bail cannot be rejected solely based on the declaration of an award by the police and that the maintainability of the second application is contingent on the emergence of new facts or grounds. (Paras 8, 11)

Facts of the case:
The applicants are accused of harassing the deceased, leading to his suicide. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the case, including previous FIRs and the deceased's mental state.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the evidence presented did not establish a prima facie case for the offence under Section 306 of IPC against the applicants, leading to the granting of bail.

Issues: The court addressed the sufficiency of evidence linking the applicants to the deceased's suicide and the implications of prior FIRs.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the lack of direct evidence and the context of the case warranted the granting of anticipatory bail, emphasizing that mere allegations do not suffice for denial of bail.

Result: Applications allowed, bail granted.

ORDER

Since the bail applications have arisen out of same crime number, therefore, they are being heard and disposed off by a common order.

2. These applications under Section 482 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (Section 439 of Cr.P.C.) has been filed on behalf of the applicants for grant of anticipatory bail.

1 MCRC-35653-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55596 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the applicants prays for withdrawal of the bail application in relation to applicant No. 1 Manoj Kumar Mishra and applicant No.2 Smt. Neelu.

4. Prayer is allowed.

5. Therefore, this bail application is dismissed as withdrawn in relation to applicant No. 1 Manoj Kumar Mishra and applicant No.2 Smt. Neelu.

6. Applicants Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Manish Mishra apprehending their arrest in connection with Crime No. 147/2024 of Police Station-Civil Lines, Jabalpur, District-Jabalpur (MP) for commission of the offences punishable under Section 306 of IPC has knocked the portal of this Court for grant of anticipatory bail.

7. Prosecution story, in brief, is that applicant as well as co-accused person repeatedly harassed and tortured deceased Kashi Prasad. On account of which deceased Kashi Prasad consumed salphaz tablet and due to which he expired.

8. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that neither Pradeep Mishra nor Manish Mishra were tenant of deceased Kashi Rajak. They never took any money from complainant party. It is also urged that on 12.05.2024, dispute took place between both the parties. FIR No. 142/2024 has been registered against Kashi Rajak, Surendra Rajak, Maya Rajak and Shaili Rajak by complainant Manish Mishra, whereas FIR No. 143/2024 has been registered against Manoj Mishra and Nilu Mishra on the basis of information lodged by the complainant Maya Rajak wife of Kashi Rajak. It is also urged that on 15.05.2024, deceased consumed salphaz tablet and he was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, police tried to record dying declaration of Kashi Rajak but on 15.05.2024 and 16.05.2024, concerned doctor informed that deceased is not in a condition to give the statement. Despite above opinion of Doctor, statement of deceased was 2 MCRC-35653-2024 NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2024:MPHC-JBP:55596 recorded by police on 15.05.2024 (Section 161 of Cr.P.C.) and which is being treated as dying declaration but before recording of above statement, no opinion of doctor was taken as to whether deceased was in a fit condition to give the statement or not. It is also urged that suicide note has been recovered on 18.08.2024. Therefore, suicide note can not be relied upon. It is also urged that in his statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., no allegations have been made against applicants Pradeep Kumar Mishra and Manish Mishra. From evidence on record, it cannot be said that applicant ever intended that deceased should commit suicide. After referring upon the case of Haneef Khan Vs. State of MP , 2021 SCC Online MP 5947 , Yuvraj Gaud Vs. State of MP and another, 2004 SCC Online MP 203 and Imratlal Vishwakarma and others Vs. State of MP, 1996 SCC Online MP 59 , it is also urged that second application of anticipatory bail is maintainable if new grounds/facts are pointed out or made out. It is also urged that in the instant case, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out.

Further, there was no relationship between applicants as well as deceased. No dispute took place between applicants as well as deceased Kashi Prasad. Further, application of anticipatory bail cannot be rejected just on the ground that concerned S.P. has declared some award. In this connection, learned counsel has relied upon M.Cr.C. No. 13325/2020 ( Rajni Puruswani and Ashok Puruswani Vs. State of MP ) decided on 17.06.2020. Further, after referring to the statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., it is also urged that therein it is clearly mentioned that on account of quarrel that took place between parties pertaining to FIR 142/2024 and FIR No. 143

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 38296

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESHHON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL, JManoj Kumar Mishra – AppellantVersusThe State Of Madhya Pradesh – RespondentMCRC 35653/2024

Anticipatory bail cannot be denied solely based on allegations without sufficient evidence linking the accused to the crime, and second applications can be maintained if new grounds arise.

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ACHAL KUMAR PALIWAL, J
Manoj Kumar Mishra – Appellant
Versus
The State Of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
MCRC 35653/2024