Allahabad High Court
Sanjay Dutt Kaushik vs State Of U.P. And Another on 30 November, 2022
Author: Suresh Kumar Gupta
Bench: Suresh Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Reserved on: 23.11.2022 Delivered on: 30.11.2022 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 7628 of 2022 Applicant :- Sanjay Dutt Kaushik Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Kumar Srivastava,Deeksha Gupta,Sr. Advocate Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Akhilesh Singh,Shaurya Sharma,Shivam Yadav Hon'ble Suresh Kumar Gupta,J.
1. Heard Mr. V.P. Srivastava, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Prateek Kumar Srivastava and Ms. Deeksha Gupta, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for complainant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the material available on record.
2. The present anticipatory bail application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail as the accused-applicant is apprehending his arrest in connection with Complaint Case No. 13304 of 2019, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Sahibabad, District Ghaziabad.
3. Brief facts of this case emerges as such, the first informant is the wife of the deceased, who lodged the instant FIR against the present applicant and other co-accused persons on 06.09.2016 with the allegation that on 04.09.2016 her husband namely, Ranjeet Jha committed suicide on account of hanging thereupon 100 number was dialled. The police party reached the spot and took down the dead body of her husband from ceiling fan and all the things which were possessed by the deceased was taken over by the police along with original suicide note. The xeroxcopy of the suicide note is annexed with written report dated 06.09.2016. Thus FIR of this case was lodged under Section 306 IPC. Before lodging of this FIR, information of the incident was given by father of the deceased Ramu Jha on 04.09.2016 to Police Station Sahibabad that his son Ranjeet, who was working as Electrician in L.R. College, committed suicide by hanging from ceiling fan. On the basis of this information, police reached the spot and dead body was removed from the fan and inquest proceedings started on 04.09.2016 and the same was completed at 9:30 p.m. on 04.09.2016.
4. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that recovery of suicide note was not mentioned in the inquest report. As per postmortem report, deceased Ranjeet Jha died on account of asphyxia as a result of ante mortem hanging. The photo copy of the suicide note was handed over to the Investigating Officer. During course of investigation, the Investigating Officer tried to tally the specimen of handwriting of the deceased by writing letter to Principal of L.R.P.G. College, Ram Narayan Jha (Father of deceased Ranjeet Jha), Smt. Roopa alias Geeta Jha. Further submission is that deceased Ranjeet Jha was facing mental problem and his treatment was going on from IHBAS Hospital Delhi. Further the father Ramu Jha alias Ram Narayan, mother Smt. Nirmala and brothers of the deceased namely, Randheer and Govind Jha filed affidavit denying the prosecution story and have submitted that deceased was being treated for mental problem out of such depression, he committed suicide. Thus no evidence was found against the applicant, final report was submitted by the police on 17.12.2016. This final report dated 17.12.2016 was challenged by opposite party no. 2 by means of protest petition, the Chief Judicial Magistrate was pleased to order for further investigation. Again the Investigating Officer by means of further statement of opposite party no. 2 enquire regarding specimen handwriting of deceased in order to compare the suicide note but opposite party no. 2 failed to provide any specimen signature and admitted handwriting of the deceased. On 06.09.2018 further statement of father of deceased was recorded in which he has stated that deceased committed suicide by hanging in fan. The deceased was undergoing depression so his mental condition was not stable. Further the Investigating Officer concluded the investigation with finding that the present applicant and co-accused Bhudev Sharma is not liable for this incident. Therefore, again second time, final report was submitted on 10.11.2018. This second final report was again challenged by opposite party no. 2 by means of protest petition. Now this protest petition is treated as complaint case under Section 190 (1) (A) Cr.P.C., therefore, statement of complainant/opposite party no. 2 under Section 200 Cr.P.C. and statements of other witnesses under Section 202 Cr.P.C. were recorded before the learned C.J.M. concerned. Consequently, under Section 204 Cr.P.C., a detailed summoning order was passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ghaziabad vide order dated 21.03.2022 and summoned the applicant and co-accused Bhudev Sharma under Section 306 IPC.
5. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that Ranjeet Jha (deceased) was temporarily engaged as Electrician in L.R.P.G. College, Sahibabad and timely wages/salary was paid by the management. Further submission is that there is no evidence available against the applicant that the applicant abetted the deceased to commit suicide. In support of his submission, learned counsel for applicant has placed reliance upon a authority of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M. Mohan Vs. State represented by the Deputy Superintendent of Police reported in 2011 (3) SCC 626 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 36 to 39 has held as under:-
36. We would like to deal with the concept of 'abetment'. Section 306 of the Code deals with 'abetment of suicide' which reads as under:
"306. 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 extent to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
37. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in the Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well known and requires no explanation. `Sui' means `self' and `cide' means `killing', thus implying an act of self-killing. In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in achieving his object of killing himself.
38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence considering that the successful offender is beyond the reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under section 309 of I.P.C.
39. "Abetment of a thing" has been defined under section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to reproduce section 107, which reads as under:
"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 an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or Thirdly - Intentionally aides, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing."
Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with section 107 reads as under:
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission of that act, and thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act."
6. Thus learned counsel for applicant has submitted that so called suicide note which was later on given by the first informant to the Investigating Officer after two days of the incident one is not genuine one, as the alleged suicide note could not be compared with the original handwriting of the deceased. Therefore, the xeroxcopy of suicide note is fake and fabricated just only to falsely implicate the applicant. The applicant is the Principal of L.R.P.G. College. Neither direct nor circumstantial evidence of abetment of suicide to deceased is available against the applicant. Just only to harass and extract the money from the applicant this false case has been registered against him. In pursuance of impugned summoning order in complaint case, the applicant approached before the sessions court for seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected on 28.06.2022 then he immediately approached this Court on 16.08.2022 by means of instant anticipatory bail application. During intervening period, coercive measure was taken against the applicant, therefore, there is apprehension of his arrest. Further during investigation, the applicant fully cooperated, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. Now the applicant is a retired Principal aged about 63 years old.
7. Mr. Amrendra Nath Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Akhilesh Singh, learned counsel for first informant as well as learned A.G.A. for the State has submitted that the suicide note was recovered by the police. The applicant is a muscle man. The opposite party no. 2 is a poor lady. On the high-handedness of the applicant, the police filed final report against the applicant. The suicide note was recovered from the pant of the deceased. The opposite party no. 2 clearly stated that the applicant forced the deceased to do the household work of applicant, which the deceased denied, the deceased used to worry. Due to this reason, the deceased committed suicide at about 7:00 p.m. at the relevant date. The deceased in his suicide note clearly stated that due to harassment of the applicant, he is committing suicide. There is no reason for false implication. Therefore, prima facie, case is made out against the applicant. Thus the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.
8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the accused has also to be taken into consideration.
9. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as well as submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.
10. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is hereby allowed.
11. Let the applicant (Sanjay Dutt Kaushik), be released on bail by the trial Court till conclusion of trial on furnishing a personal bond and, two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court concerned with the following conditions:
(i) The applicant shall not leave India during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.
(ii) The applicant shall surrender their passports, if any, to the concerned trial Court forthwith. Their passport will remain in custody of the concerned trial Court.
(iii) That the applicants shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iv) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in Court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law;
(v) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through his counsel. In case of his absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against him under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. The applicant shall cooperate in the investigation;
(vi) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code; and
(vi) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
(vii) The applicant is directed to immediately participate in the trial otherwise, benefit of this order shall not be made available to him.
Order Date :- 30.11.2022 Virendra