Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 130 (JK)

Karan Singh v. UT of J&K

2022-03-25

MOHD.AKRAM CHOWDHARY

body2022
JUDGMENT : MOHD. AKRAM CHOWDHARY, J. 1. Petitioner through the medium of the instant application seeks grant of bail in a case registered at Police Station Nagrota, Jammu vide FIR No. 12/2022 for the commission of offence punishable under section 306 IPC. 2. Petitioner has asserted that he had a land dispute with one Dillawar Singh of village Sidhra; that he had filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction and obtained an interim order of injunction from the Court of Learned Munsiff Jammu; that the said Dillawar Singh on 31.12.2021 set himself to fire and his wife who made an attempt to save him also got burnt and she expired; that the said Dillawar Singh also expired later on; that the Police registered the aforementioned case and falsely implicated the petitioner due to land dispute; that he has been arrested on 06.01.2022. 3. Petitioner further pleads that there is nothing attributable to the petitioner which may fall within the definition of Section 306 IPC. Petitioner has also placed on record the copy of the plaint of the civil suit titled Karan Singh vs. Dillawar Singh and Others, with regard to land comprising of Khasra No. 198 of village Sidhra, Tehsil and District Jammu and copy of the order dated 29.01.2022 passed in bail application by the Ld. Principal Sessions Judge, Jammu whereby the petition for grant of bail moved by the petitioner has been rejected for the reasons that the petitioner stands charged for a very heinous offence and in view of the prevailing lawlessness and increasing crime rate in respect of murder and dacoity. 4. Pursuant to notice, the respondent filed the objections asserting therein that on 02.01.2022, a lady namely Purna Devi W/o Dillawar Singh had succumbed to her burn injuries at Govt. Medical College, Jammu where she had been admitted on 31.12.2021 and that her husband Dillawar Singh also succumbed to his injuries on 06.01.2022; that based on inquest proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C. a case was registered vide FIR No. 12/2022 under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Nagrota, Jammu; that as per the dying declaration of the deceased Dillawar Singh and the statements of other witnesses, it has been established that a civil suit had been filed by petitioner Karan Singh against deceased Dillawar Singh and his brothers and obtained status quo order from the court with respect to suit land falling under Khasra Nos. 198 and 199 but the petitioner in his suit had misrepresented that the deceased Dillawar Singh has started construction work of his house in the suit land despite having knowledge that the deceased was raising construction in land comprising of Khasra No. 192; that it was established that the petitioner had an old enmity with the deceased and his brothers in connection with a pathway which connected all their houses to National Highway; that petitioner Karan Singh wants the width of the pathway to about 17 feet whereas deceased Dillawar Singh and his brothers did not agree to that width; that accused Karan Singh will fully misrepresented concealing the material facts about land and had obtained status quo order from the court and due to this deliberate criminal intention of the petitioner, the deceased finally committed suicide as the petitioner had left no other option for deceased and it is finally prayed that the application for grant of bail be rejected. 5. Heard both the counsel for the parties and considered. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the petitioner has been fixed and framed in a false and frivolous case registered at Police Station Nagrota, Jammu on a flimsy ground that due to his filing of a civil suit against one of the deceased Dillawar Singh, who and his wife had committed suicide. Mere filing of a suit and obtaining a temporary injunction cannot be said to be any reason so as to abet the commission of suicide punishable under Section 306 IPC. He further argued that the petitioner has been in Jail for last almost three months and prayed that he be admitted to bail. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner's act of engaging the deceased in an unwarranted litigation, knowing fully well that the suit land is different from the land over which the deceased was raising construction, had obtained the temporary injunction from the court by misrepresentation and has pressurized the deceased to take the extreme step of committing suicide. It was prayed that the bail application be rejected. 8. Section 306 of IPC provides as under: Abetment of suicide: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. It was prayed that the bail application be rejected. 8. Section 306 of IPC provides as under: Abetment of suicide: If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are: (i) the abetment, (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide; there should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, the accused cannot be held to be guilty under Section 306 IPC. 9. To understand as to what is the abetment, Section 107 of the IPC is required to be adverted to: 107. Abetment of a thing: A person abets the doing of a thing, who first instigates any person to do that thing; or secondly engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if any act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or thirdly intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. 10. It has been a consistent view of the Constitutional Courts including the Apex Court that for grant of bail in a suitable case, the settled factors are to be considered which are summarized as follows: (i) The nature of the alleged offence, the nature of the accusation and the severity of the punishment in the case of a conviction. (ii) Whether there exists a reasonable apprehension of the accused tampering with the witnesses or being a threat to the complainant or the witnesses. (iii) The possibility of securing the presence of the accused at the trial or the likelihood of the accused fleeing from justice. (iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused. (v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR. (vi) The significant interests of the public or the State and other similar considerations. 11. (iv) The antecedents of and circumstances which are peculiar to the accused. (v) Whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence are made out, on the basis of the allegations as they stand, in the FIR. (vi) The significant interests of the public or the State and other similar considerations. 11. Human liberty is a precious constitutional value which is undoubtedly subject to regulation by validly enacted legislation. As such, the citizen is subject to edicts of criminal law and procedure. Perusal of Section 107 and Section 306 of IPC makes it clear that whenever a person instigates or intentionally aids, by an act or illegal omission, the doing of a thing such person can be said to have abetted in doing that thing. As in all crimes, mens rea has to be established to prove the offence of the abetment, the state of mind of committing a particular crime must be visible to determine the culpability. In order to prove mens rea, there has to be something on record to establish or show that the petitioner herein had a guilty mind and in furtherance of that state of mind abetted the suicide of the deceased, the ingredients of mens rea cannot be assumed to be ostensibly present but has to be visible and conspicuous. 12. The offence under Section 306 IPC is punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine. In the instant case where the petitioner has been alleged to have filed a suit against the deceased and his brothers and that the interim injunction had been obtained by misrepresentation to drive the deceased Dillawar Singh to commit suicide and his wife had got burnt to death while saving him from committing suicide. In the instant case where the petitioner has been alleged to have filed a suit against the deceased and his brothers and that the interim injunction had been obtained by misrepresentation to drive the deceased Dillawar Singh to commit suicide and his wife had got burnt to death while saving him from committing suicide. Petitioner has been accused of having committed offence punishable under Section 306 IPC which is not punishable either with the death sentence or in the alternative life imprisonment and also has no statutory bar to the grant of bail in such an offence, the reason assigned for the alleged abetment by the petitioner for the commission of suicide by the deceased by stretch of no imagination can be stated to be such an instigation which may derive a prudent man to commit suicide simply for the reason that the petitioner had filed a civil suit regarding land dispute and that too was not a new case. 13. Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2021 SC 1 while granting bail in a case of abetment to suicide (306 IPC) based on denial of work payment expected as under in Para 65: “It is our earnest hope that our courts will exhibit acute awareness to the need to expand the footprint of liberty and use our approach as a decision making yardstick for future cases involving the grant of bail.” 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahipal vs. Rajesh Kumar and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 113 , while discussing the amplitude and power of the Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has observed as under: “The determination of whether a case is fit for the grant of bail involves the balancing of numerous factors, among which the nature of the offence, the severity of the punishment and a prima facie view of the involvement of the accused are important. No straight jacket formula exists for courts to assess an application for the grant or rejection of bail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trail. At the stage of assessing whether a case is fit for the grant of bail, the court is not required to enter into a detailed analysis of the evidence on record to establish beyond reasonable doubt the commission of the crime by the accused. That is a matter for trail. However, the Court is required to examine whether there is a prima facie or reasonable ground to believe that the accused had committed the offence and on a balance of the considerations involved, the continued custody of the accused sub-serves the purpose of the criminal justice system.” 15. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the offence of which petitioner has been charged cannot be stated to be such wherein he may not be entitled to the grant of bail, having regard to the settled principles governing bails. The observations made in this order are simply for the disposal of this petition and shall not be construed as reflections on the merit of the case. 16. For the foregoing reasons and the observations made herein above, the application is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to following conditions: (i) That he shall furnish bail and personal bonds to the tune of Rs. 40,000/- to the satisfaction of the Trial Court. (ii) That he shall not associate himself with the witnesses or tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner, whatsoever. 17. Bail application is disposed of as granted.