IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE ANURADHA SHUKLA th ON THE 9 OF MAY, 2023 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 9959 of 2023 BETWEEN:-

ANURAG SONI S/O SHRI SHYAM SUNDER SONI, AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSINESS RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- HAIRRI, TAHSIL KIRNAPUR, POLICE STATION- KIRNAPUR, DISTRICT BALAGAHT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANT (BY SHRI MANISH DATT - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI SATYAM RAI -

ADVOCATE)

AND THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH POLICE STATION KIRNAPUR DISTRICT- BALAGHAT (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI CHANDRA KANT MISHRA -GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR STATE, SHRI SHISHIR SONI - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)

This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

This is first application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant who is apprehending his arrest relating to FIR/Crime No.40/2023 dated 12.02.2023 registered at Police Station-Kirnapur, District Balaghat (M.P.) for the offence punishable under Sections 306 of IPC.

Applicant has prayed for grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that the false and fictitious allegations have been leveled against the applicant. There is Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR no mens rea on the part of the applicant. The term abatement as defined under section 107 of IPC has no application here. There is no evidence to indicate that the applicant ever abated the deceased to commit suicide or ever harassed the deceased. On the contrary, he has made a representation before the I.G, Balaghat for higher level enquiry regarding the conversion of crime of murder to suicide. The presumptive clause of section 113-A and Section 113-B of Evidence Act are not attracted here. Frivolous allegations have been levelled against the applicant with malicious intention. He is ready to abide by any terms and conditions imposed by the court while granting bail.

Learned Government Advocate as well as learned counsel for Objector has strongly opposed the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail.

Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the case diary.

I t is stated by by the prosecution that the deceased had a love relationship with the applicant and wanted to marry him but on account of sudden refusal by applicant to this marriage, the deceased committed suicide by hanging. The contention of applicant is that simple breakdown in the love relationship or refusal to marry do not make out a case under section 306 of IPC for abating a person to commit suicide. There must be intentional aiding or active role showing clear mens rea on the part of the accused to commit this crime. For this, his learned counsel has relied upon Vedprakash Bhaiji Vs. State of MP reported in 1994 JLJ 758, Gangula Mohan Reddy Vs. State of A.P reported in 2010 (1) SCC 750, A.R Madhav Rao Vs. State of Haryana reported in 2019 (3) Crimes 578, Prathvi Raj Chauhan Vs. Union of India (2020) 4 SCC 727, Hitesh Verma Vs. State of Uttarakhand (2020) 10 Signature Not Verified Signed by: TARUN KUMAR SCC 710, Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 2002 SC 1998).

In the light of these contention, the facts mentioned in the case diary are examined. Apart from marg intimation written on 18.01.2023, there is a written complaint submitted by Mallika the sister of deceased, which is dated 18.01.2023 i.e date of the incident. In this complaint, the details of incident dated 15.01.2023 have been given elaborately, which suggest that the applicant was furious with the deceased and he publicly assaulted her causing injuries to her person. Statement of Mallika recorded under marg enquiry on 22.01.2023 further elaborate the incident, which preceded the commission of suicide. The matter is still at the stage of investigation. Hence, the case laws laying down principles on the convincing proof or otherwise of the crime of abatement to the commission of suicide, cannot be invoked at this stage. The