Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 121 (MP)

Kuldeep Jain v. State of M. P.

2021-02-08

SUJOY PAUL

body2021
JUDGMENT : Sujoy Paul, J. Heard through video conferencing. 1. With the consent heard finally. 2. This is the first application filed by the applicant/accused under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail. The applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Crime No. 921/2020 registered at Police Station, Chandan Nagar, Indore for the offences registered under Section 306 of the IPC. 3. Learned counsel for applicant submits that according to prosecution story, on 27/6/2020 son of deceased Ayush informed the police that his father has committed suicide. The deceased Gopal committed suicide on 27/6/2020 and implicated as many as 14 persons. On the basis of his suicide note the applicant has been arraigned. The basis of suicide note is a money transaction and a dispute with regard to interest and demanding the money back. The necessary ingredients for invoking Section 306 of the IPC are not available. The conjoint reading of Sec. 107 and 307 of IPC shows that merely because somebody has written a suicide note naming somebody else does not attract Sec. 306 of IPC. The reliance is placed on M. Arjunan Vs. State (2019) 3 SCC 315 . 4. The prayer is opposed by learned Panel Lawyer. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for parties at length. 6. As per prosecution story and suicide note the deceased was under financial pressure. He has written the suicide note naming the present applicant also. In M. Arjunan (supra) the Apex Court opined as the essential ingredients of the offence u/S.306 of IPC are; (i) the abetment; (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language etc, will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. In absence of these ingredients being available Section 306 of IPC is not attracted. 7. The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down the broad factors and parameters for the purpose of deciding an anticipatory bail. The same are as under:- "112. In absence of these ingredients being available Section 306 of IPC is not attracted. 7. The Apex Court in Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694 has laid down the broad factors and parameters for the purpose of deciding an anticipatory bail. The same are as under:- "112. (i) The nature and gravity of the accusation and the exact role of the accused must be properly comprehended before arrest is made; (ii) The antecedents of the applicant including the fact as to whether the accused has previously undergone imprisonment on conviction by a court in respect of any cognizable offence; (iii) The possibility of the applicant to flee from justice; (iv) The possibility of the accused's likelihood to repeat similar or other offences; (v) Where the accusations have been made only with the object of injuring or humiliating the applicant by arresting him or her; (vi) Impact of grant of anticipatory bail particularly in cases of large magnitude affecting a very large number of people; (vii) The courts must evaluate the entire available material against the accused very carefully. The court must also clearly comprehend the exact role of the accused in the case. The cases in which the accused is implicated with the help of Sections 34 and 149 of the Penal Code, 1860 the court should consider with even greater care and caution because over implication in the cases is a matter of common knowledge and concern; (viii) While considering the prayer for grant of anticipatory bail, a balance has to be struck between two factors, namely, no prejudice should be caused to the free, fair and full investigation and there should be prevention of harassment, humiliation and unjustified detention of the accused; (ix) The court to consider reasonable apprehension of tampering of the witness or apprehension of threat to the complainant; (x) Frivolity in prosecution should always be considered and it is only the element of genuineness that shall have to be considered in the matter of grant of bail and in the event of there being some doubt as to the genuineness of the prosecution, in the normal course of events, the accused is entitled to an order of bail. 113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. 113. Arrest should be the last option and it should be restricted to those exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in the facts and circumstances of that case. The court must carefully examine the entire available record and particularly the allegations which have been directly attributed to the accused and these allegations are corroborated by other material and circumstances on record." (emphasis supplied) 8. The applicant is a businessman. The deceased averred in the suicide note that present applicant was one of those persons who mentally harassed him day and night. He further averred that he gave Rupees Fifty lakh to one Anees on interest. The amount has been taken back from Anees and even interest is being taken from the deceased. The written documents of such transaction are with Anees. The deceased does not have any document. He threatens the applicant by sending anti social elements to his house etc. 9. The prosecution has not shown any criminal antecedence of the present applicant. There is little possibility of applicant's fleeing from justice being a businessman. At present there is no material available to show that there is any likelihood of applicant's committing similar or other offences. The incriminating material have already been recovered by the police including the suicide note. In para 113 of the said judgment, the Apex Court opined that arrest should be the last option restricted to exceptional cases where arresting the accused is imperative in a particular factual back drop of a case. 10. Considering the nature and gravity of accusation and other relevant factors, in my opinion it is a fit case where anticipatory bail can be granted to the applicant. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it proper to enlarge the applicant on bail. Hence, this application for grant of anticipatory bail is allowed. 11. Accordingly, in the event of arrest, the applicant Kuldeep Jain be released on anticipatory bail on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) along with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of arresting officer for his appearance before the Investigating Officer during the course of investigation as and when directed. Conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. shall also apply on the applicant during currency of bail. 12. The application stands disposed of. 13. c.c. as per rules.