Gujarat High Court
Meghrajsinh Bharatsinh Gohil vs State Of Gujarat on 18 February, 2022
Author: Ilesh J. Vora
Bench: Ilesh J. Vora
R/CR.MA/722/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 722 of 2021
==========================================================
MEGHRAJSINH BHARATSINH GOHIL
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR.NANDISH H THACKAR(7008) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
(MR LR PUJARI)(681) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR JAIMIN A MEHTA(10552) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MRS KRINA CALLA, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ILESH J. VORA
Date : 18/02/2022
ORAL ORDER
1. This application is filed by the applicant under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking prayer of anticipatory bail in connection with the FIR being C.R. No.11196030200868 of 2020 registered with Sayajiganj Police Station, District: Vadodara City for the offences under Sections 306, 386, 506(2) and 114 of IPC and Sections 38, 40 and 42 of Gujarat Money Laundering Act, 2011.
2. The case of the prosecution is that one Alpeshbhai Nanjibhai Patel - husband of the complainant decided to end his life and committed suicide on 06.10.2020 in Room No.105 of Hotel Amity at Vadodara at Vadodara. The wife-complainant lodged an FIR against ten persons. The applicant herein has been arraigned as accused no.4 in the alleged FIR. The investigating agency found one suicide note at the hotel room, wherein names of ten persons as referred in the FIR were disclosed by the deceased. It reveals from the suicide note that the persons named in the FIR are harassing the deceased and he is ending his life due to said harassment. It further reveals from the Page 1 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 19 20:47:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/722/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022 note that he had paid Rs.2 crore 41 lakh to them, however, they are pressurizing for further amount and threatening him to kill also. It is specifically mentioned in the suicide note that for his act of suicide, his partner Narendrasinh Vaghela is responsible as he earned Rs.2 crore and now he is not cooperating him and therefore, he decided to end his life.
In the aforesaid facts, the wife of the deceased lodged an FIR against the present applicant and other co-accused alleging that due to constant harassment on their part, her husband has committed suicide.
3. This Court has heard Mr. Nandish H. Thackar, learned advocate for the applicant, Mr. Jaimin A. Mehta, learned advocate for the original complainant and Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-State.
4. It is the submission of Mr. Thackar, learned advocate for the applicant that even as per the FIR and suicide note, there is no any specific allegation made against the applicant of having caused any abetment to the deceased to take such an unfortunate step. That the applicant had not entered into any monetary transaction with the deceased and as per the case of prosecution, the transaction was with accused no.3 and the applicant is not responsible in any manner for the alleged suicide. That no prima-facie offence of instigation and/or abetment to suicide is made out against the applicant. Relying on the case of A.K. Chaudhary and Anr. v. State of Gujarat and Ors., reported in 2005 (3) G.L.H. 444, he has urged that the ingredients for abetment for suicide would be satisfied only if the suicide is committed by the deceased due to direct and alarming encouragement/incitement by the accused leaving no option but to commit suicide. In this context, he would submits that except the name of the Page 2 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 19 20:47:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/722/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022 applicant in the suicide note, there is no evidence with regard to abetment and therefore the act/allegations made in the FIR as well as suicide note does not itself amounts to instigation and it does not reflect the mensrea which is necessary concomitant of instigation (Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh reported in AIR 2002 SC 1998) In the aforesaid contentions raised by Mr. Thackar, learned advocate for the applicant, he would submits that case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail and therefore, present application may be allowed.
5. Mr. Jaimin Mehta, learned advocate for the original complainant would submits that the investigating agency has collected sufficient material in the form of C.D.R. and Audio call records would suggest involvement of the applicant in the alleged offence and therefore, the act of harassment pressurizing the deceased to repay the amount would fall under the definition of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC and prima-facie, case is made out under Section 306 of IPC against the present applicant.
In the aforesaid facts, Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the original complainant would submits that considering the gravity of the offence, custodial interrogation of the present applicant is necessary for further investigation and therefore, present application may not be entertained.
6. Mrs. Krina Calla, learned APP for the respondent-State adopting the arguments made by Mr. Mehta, learned advocate for the original complainant would submits that the contents of the FIR would establish the ingredients of abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC and therefore, no case Page 3 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 19 20:47:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/722/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022 is made out for grant of anticipatory bail.
7. Before adverting to the issue raised by learned advocates for the respective parties, it is apt to refer the settled law with the subject to grant and/or refusal of anticipatory bail. It is settled by the Apex Court by catena of decisions that power under Section 438 CrPC is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of the pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; possibility of applicant fleeing from justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.
8. In the case on hand, the offence is registered under Sections 306, 386 and 506(2) of IPC. In order to bring the case within provisions of Section 306 of IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in commission of said act, the person who is said to have abeted commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act of instigating or by doing a certain act to facilitate commission of suicide. Recently in the case of Velladurai vs State Represented by the Inspector of Police reported in 2021 (4) Crimes 331, it is observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court that mere harassment without any positive action on the part of the accused proximate to the time of occurrence which led to the suicide would not amount to an offence under Section 306 of IPC. In light of the settled Page 4 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 19 20:47:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/722/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022 law propounded by Apex Court and applying to the facts of the present case, it appears that the deceased was in business of finance with accused no.3 - Narendrasinh Vaghela who happen to be his partner. The informant - wife of the deceased disclosed the facts in the FIR that deceased was in depression as he has invested huge amount in the market. If we read the contents of the suicide note, referred in the FIR, it reveals that the deceased was unhappy with the act and attitude of his partner as he had earned huge amount from business, however, when time come up to repay the amount borrowed from other persons, he did not cooperate to the deceased. It is unfortunate that the deceased committed suicide because he was in financial crisis. In the suicide note, except the reference of the applicant herein, nothing being alleged further against the present applicant.
9. There is no allegation either in the FIR, or in the suicide note that on which date and how much amount borrowed by the deceased from the applicant and other co-accused, as they have been projected as friends of accused no.3 - Narendrasinh Vaghela.
10. In the foregoing reasons, as there is no any past antecedents of like nature against the present applicant and pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the applicant remained present before the investigating officer and the investigation is almost completed and therefore, custodial interrogation of the present applicant is not necessary. Thus, without expressing anything on merits of the case and considering the role attributed to the present applicant in the alleged offence, I find no reason to decline pre-arrest bail to the applicant. In the result, the present application is allowed. The applicant is ordered to be released on bail in the event of his arrest in connection with a FIR being C.R. No.11196030200868 of Page 5 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 19 20:47:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/722/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022 2020 registered with Sayajiganj Police Station, District:
Vadodara City on his executing a personal bond of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only) with one surety of like amount on the following conditions:
(a) shall cooperate with the investigation and make himself available for interrogation whenever required;
(b) shall remain present at concerned Police Station on 28.02.2022 between 11.00 a.m. and 2.00 p.m.;
(c) shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the fact of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the court or to any police officer;
(d) shall not obstruct or hamper the police investigation and not to play mischief with the evidence collected or yet to be collected by the police;
(e) shall at the time of execution of bond, furnish the address to the investigating officer and the court concerned and shall not change his residence till the final disposal of the case till further orders;
(f) shall not leave India without the permission of the Trial Court and if having passport shall deposit the same before the Trial Court within a week; and
(g) it would be open to the Investigating Officer to file an application for remand if he considers it proper and just and the learned Magistrate would decide it on merits;
11. Despite this order, it would be open for the Investigating Agency to apply to the competent Magistrate, for police remand of the applicant. The applicant shall remain present before the learned Magistrate on the first date of hearing of such application and on all subsequent occasions, as may be directed by the learned Magistrate. This would be sufficient to treat the accused in the judicial custody for the purpose of entertaining application of the prosecution for police remand. This is, however, without prejudice to the right of the accused Page 6 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 19 20:47:14 IST 2022 R/CR.MA/722/2021 ORDER DATED: 18/02/2022 to seek stay against an order of remand, if, ultimately, granted, and the power of the learned Magistrate to consider such a request in accordance with law. It is clarified that the applicant, even if, remanded to the police custody, upon completion of such period of police remand, shall be set free immediately, subject to other conditions of this anticipatory bail order.
12. At the trial, the Trial Court shall not be influenced by the prima facie observations made by this Court in the present order.
13. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent. Direct service is permitted.
(ILESH J. VORA,J) TAUSIF SAIYED Page 7 of 7 Downloaded on : Sat Feb 19 20:47:14 IST 2022