Madhya Pradesh High Court
Anil Kumar Sen vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 3 October, 2018
M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 1
(Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.)
The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
Indore : 03/10/2018 :-
Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rakesh Maheshwari, learned Public Prosecutor for
the respondent/State.
Heard with the aid of case diary.
ORDER
After dismissal of first bail petition on merits by this Court vide order dated 01/08/2018 passed in M.Cr.C. No.29898/2018, without challenging the order, the petitioner has preferred this second bail petition under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. in connection with Crime No.365/2018 under Section 306 of IPC registered at Police Station - MIG, Indore District-Indore.
2. The substantial change as pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioner is filing of the charge-sheet and that now he has copy of the suicide-note with him and as per his study, the reason for suicide by the deceased was frustration due to her failure in the life and not the abetment by the petitioner. It is further alleged that earlier this Court has only mentioned the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by him passed in M.Mohan vs. State Represented by the Deputy Superintended of Police reported in AIR 2011 SC 1238 but why the same was not relied upon or the reasons for not relying upon the judgement have not been assigned in the earlier order. Though it is admitted by the learned counsel that M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 2 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) all the contentions raised by him are mentioned in the earlier order but no specific reason is assigned for not granting him bail, while the bail is the rule and jail is only an exception.
3. This time learned counsel for the petitioner has come with more authorities on the subject. He again referred para 8 and 9 of Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another (2010) 8 SCC 628, para 14 to 15 of order dated 26/03/2018 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.5952/2018, para 10 to 16 of State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others (2015) 9 SCC 639, para 10, 12 and 15 of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002) 3 Supreme 650, para 13, 20,28 and 30 of Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433 and para 11, 18, 19, 25, 28, 30, 39, 47, 52 of the judgment of Madras High Court dated 31/07/2015 passed in V. Venkataraman vs. State (2015) 3 MLJ (Criminal) 669.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner read-out all the referred paras during arguements.
5. For convenience, I am re-producing the same :-
Para 8 and 9 of Madan Mohan Singh vs. State of Gujarat and another (2010) 8 SCC 628 :-
"8. It is on this that Shri Tulsi contended that all this is absolutely absurd. If a person writes a suicide note on 4.2.2008, he had no business to send the suicide note to High Court and keep a copy thereof in the house. Learned Senior Counsel said that even if all this is accepted as it is, there is nothing to suggest that the appellant has committed M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 3 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) any offence or that any offence could be spelt out from the said suicide note or the FIR much less offence under Section 306 and 294 IPC. We are convinced that there is absolutely nothing in this suicide note or the FIR which would even distantly be viewed as an offence much less under Section 306 IPC. We could not find anything in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note which could be suggested as abetment to commit suicide. In such matters there must be an allegation that the accused had instigated the deceased to commit suicide or secondly, had engaged with some other person in a conspiracy and lastly, that the accused had in any way aided any act or illegal omission to bring about the suicide. In spite of our best efforts and microscopic examination of the suicide note and the FIR, all that we find is that the suicide note is a rhetoric document in the nature of a departmental complaint. It also suggests some mental imbalance on the part of the deceased which he himself describes as depression. In the so-called suicide note, it cannot be said that the accused ever intended that the driver under him should commit suicide or should end his life and did anything in that behalf. Even if it is accepted that the accused changed the duty of the driver or that the accused asked him not to take the keys of the car and to keep the keys of the car in the office itself, it does not mean that the accused intended or knew that the driver should commit suicide because of this. In order to bring out an offence under Section 306 IPC specific abetment as contemplated by Section 107 IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the concerned person as a result of that abetment is required. The intention of the accused to aid or to instigate or to abet the deceased M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 4 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) to commit suicide is a must for this particular offence under Section 306 IPC. We are of the clear opinion that there is no question of there being any material for offence under Section 306 IPC either in the FIR or in the so-called suicide note.
9. It is absurd to even think that a superior officer like the appellant would intend to bring about suicide of his driver and, therefore, abet the offence. In fact, there is no nexus between the so called suicide (if at all it is one for which also there is no material on record) and any of the alleged acts on the part of the appellant. There is no proximity either. In the prosecution under Section 306 IPC, much more material is required. The Courts have to be extremely careful as the main person is not available for cross- examination by the appellant/accused. Unless, therefore, there is specific allegation and material of definite nature (not imaginary or inferential one), it would be hazardous to ask the appellant/accused to face the trial. A criminal trial is not exactly a pleasant experience. The person like the appellant in present case who is serving in a responsible post would certainly suffer great prejudice, were he to face prosecution on absurd allegations of irrelevant nature. In the similar circumstances, as reported in Netai Dutta Vs. State of W.B. [2005 (2) SCC 659], this Court had quashed the proceedings initiated against the accused."
Para 14 and 15 of order dated 26/03/2018 passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in M.Cr.C. No.5952/2018 :-
"14. Therefore, to constitute the commission of an offence of abetment of suicide, an element of mens rea is an essential ingredient as the abetment involves a M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 5 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) mental preparedness with an intention to instigation, provoke, insight or encourage to do an act or a thing. Besides, such process of instigation etc., must have close proximity with the act of commission of suicide. Therefore, a person cannot be accused or punished for an offence of abetment of suicide under section 306 IPC, unless; the aforesaid requirement of law is satisfied as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 2002 SC 1998 and Madan Mohan Singh Vs. State of Gujarat and another (2010) 8 SCC 628.
15. In the backdrop of the factual matrix of the case in hand detailed in the preceding paragraphs, it is apparent that the 12 Mis.
Cr. Case No.5952/2018 deceased joined the Company in the year 2011 and continued for a period of six years. During this period, on many occasions, he sought to be relieved of his duties for personal reasons. In email dated 03/11/2012 (Annexure P/4) while intending to resign, he has also expressed his gratitude to the Management for giving him opportunities and support during his service tenure. The request was accepted by S.K.Grover on the same day by an email dated 03/11/2012 assuring him to be relieved on 10/12/2012, however, he continued to work. Thereafter, on 12/09/2014, he sent another email addressed to the applicant with a copy to S.K.Grover expressing his intention for resignation as Section Officer wherein also he has expressed his gratitude for working in the Company. As such, he dropped the idea of leaving the Company and further continued as evident from the email of September, 2014. As a matter of fact, the deceased himself withdrew the resignation M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 6 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) twice on the premise that his personal problem was solved and continued to discharge his duties. As such, the communication referred above do not contain allegations of the nature the applicant is accused of in the FIR."
Para 10 to 16 of State of Kerala and others vs. S. Unnikrishnan Nair and others (2015) 9 SCC 639 :-
10. To appreciate the rivalised submissions in the obtaining factual matrix, it is necessary to understand the concept of abatement as enshrined in Section 107 IPC. The said provision reads as follows:- "107. 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 aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.
Explanation 1. - A person who, by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.
Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the time of 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."
11. The aforesaid provision was interpreted in Kishori Lal v. State of M.P.[4] by a two-Judge Bench and the discussion therein is to the following effect:-
"Section 107 IPC defines abetment of a thing. The offence of abetment is a separate and distinct offence provided in IPC. A person, abets the doing of a thing when (1) he instigates any person to do that thing; or (2) engages with one M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 7 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) or more other persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing; or (3) intentionally aids, by act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing. These things are essential to complete abetment as a crime. The word "instigate" literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do any thing. The abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid, as provided in the three clauses of Section
107. Section 109 provides that if the act abetted is committed in consequence of abetment and there is no provision for the punishment of such abetment, then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. "Abetted" in Section 109 means the specific offence abetted. Therefore, the offence for the abetment of which a person is charged with the abetment is normally linked with the proved offence."
12. In Analendu Pal Alis Jhantu v. State of West Bengal[5] dealing with expression of abetment the Court observed:-
"The expression "abetment" has been defined under Section 107 IPC which we have already extracted above. A person is said to abet the commission of suicide when a person instigates any person to do that thing as stated in clause Firstly or to do anything as stated in clauses Secondly or Thirdly of Section 107 IPC. Section 109 IPC provides that if the act abetted is committed pursuant to and in consequence of abetment then the offender is to be punished with the punishment provided for the original offence. Learned counsel for the respondent State, however, clearly stated before us that it would be a case where clause Thirdly of Section 107 IPC only would be attracted. According to him, a case of abetment of suicide is made out as provided for under Section 107 IPC."
13. As we find from the narration of facts and the material brought on record in the case at hand, it M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 8 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) is the suicide note which forms the fulcrum of the allegations and for proper appreciation of the same, we have reproduced it herein-before. On a plain reading of the same, it is difficult to hold that there has been any abetment by the respondents. The note, except saying that the respondents compelled him to do everything and cheated him and put him in deep trouble, contains nothing else. The respondents were inferior in rank and it is surprising that such a thing could happen. That apart, the allegation is really vague. It also baffles reason, for the department had made him the head of the investigating team and the High Court had reposed complete faith in him and granted him the liberty to move the court, in such a situation, there was no warrant to feel cheated and to be put in trouble by the officers belonging to the lower rank. That apart, he has also put the blame on the Chief Judicial Magistrate by stating that he had put pressure on him. He has also made the allegation against the Advocate.
14. In Netai Dutta (supra), a two-Judge Bench, while dealing with the concept of abetment under Section 107 I.P.C. and, especially, in the context of suicide note, had to say this:
"In the suicide note, except referring to the name of the appellant at two places, there is no reference of any act or incidence whereby the appellant herein is alleged to have committed any wilful act or omission or intentionally aided or instigated the deceased Pranab Kumar Nag in committing the act of suicide. There is no case that the appellant has played any part or any role in any conspiracy, which ultimately instigated or resulted in the commission of suicide by deceased Pranab Kumar Nag.
Apart from the suicide note, there is no allegation made by the complainant that the appellant herein in any way was harassing his brother, Pranab Kumar Nag. The case registered against the appellant is without any factual foundation. The M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 9 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) contents of the alleged suicide note do not in any way make out the offence against the appellant. The prosecution initiated against the appellant would only result in sheer harassment to the appellant without any fruitful result. In our opinion, the learned Single Judge seriously erred in holding that the First Information Report against the appellant disclosed the elements of a cognizable offence. There was absolutely no ground to proceed against the appellant herein. We find that this is a fit case where the extraordinary power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is to be invoked. We quash the criminal proceedings initiated against the appellant and accordingly allow the appeal."
15. In M. Mohan (supra), while dealing with the abatement, the Court has observed thus:
"Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by this court are clear that in order to convict a person under Section 306 IPC there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he/she committed suicide."
16. As far as Praveen Pradhan (supra), is concerned, Mr. Rao, has emphatically relied on it for the purpose that the Court had declined to quash the F.I.R. as there was a suicide note. Mr. Rao has drawn out attention to paragraph 10 of the judgment, wherein the suicide note has been reproduced. The Court in the said case has referred to certain authorities with regard to Section 107 I.P.C. and opined as under: "In fact, from the above discussion it is apparent that M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 10 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) instigation has to be gathered from the circumstances of a particular case. No straight- jacket formula can be laid down to find out as to whether in a particular case there has been instigation which force the person to commit suicide. In a particular case, there may not be direct evidence in regard to instigation which may have direct nexus to suicide.
Therefore, in such a case, an inference has to be drawn from the circumstances and it is to be determined whether circumstances had been such which in fact had created the situation that a person felt totally frustrated and committed suicide. More so, while dealing with an application for quashing of the proceedings, a court cannot form a firm opinion, rather a tentative view that would evoke the presumption referred to under Section 228 Cr.P.C.
Thus, the case is required to be considered in the light of aforesaid settled legal propositions. In the instant case, alleged harassment had not been a casual feature, rather remained a matter of persistent harassment. It is not a case of a driver; or a man having an illicit relationship with a married woman, knowing that she also had another paramour; and therefore, cannot be compared to the situation of the deceased in the instant case, who was a qualified graduate engineer and still suffered persistent harassment and humiliation and additionally, also had to endure continuous illegal demands made by the appellant, upon non- fulfillment of which, he would be mercilessly harassed by the appellant for a prolonged period of time. He had also been forced to work continuously for a long durations in the factory, vis-à-vis other employees which often even entered to 16-17 hours at a stretch. Such harassment, coupled with the utterance of words to the effect, that, "had there been any other person in his place, he would have certainly committed suicide" is what makes the present case distinct from the aforementioned cases considering the facts and circumstances of M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 11 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) the present case, we do not think it is a case which requires any interference by this court as regards the impugned judgment and order of the High Court."
Para 10, 12 and 15 of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar vs. State of M.P. (2002) 3 Supreme 650 :-
10. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P., 1995 Supp.
(3) SCC 731, the appellant was charged for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C basically based upon the dying declaration of the deceased, which reads as under:
"My mother-in-law and husband and sister-in-law (husband's elder brother's wife) harassed me. They beat me and abused me. My husband Mahendra wants to marry a second time. He has illicit connections with my sister-in-law. Because of these reasons and being harassed I want to die by burning."
12. In Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618, this Court while considering the charge framed and the conviction for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. on the basis of dying declaration recorded by an Executive Magistrate , in which she had stated that previously there had been quarrel between the deceased and her husband and on the day of occurrence she had a quarrel with her husband who had said that she could go wherever she wanted to go and that thereafter she had poured kerosene on herself and had set fire. Acquitting the accused this Court said:
"A word uttered in a fit of anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually follow cannot be said to be instigation. If it transpires to the court that a victim committing suicide was hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life quite common to the society to which the victim belonged and such petulance, discord and differences were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual in a given society to commit suicide, the M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 12 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) conscience of the court should not be satisfied for basing a finding that the accused charged for abetting the offence of suicide should be found guilty."
15. A plain reading of the suicide note would clearly show that the deceased was in great stress and depressed. One plausible reason could be that the deceased was without any work or avocation and at the same time indulged in drinking as revealed from the statement of the wife Smt. Neelam Sengar. He was a frustrated man. Reading of the suicide note will clearly suggest that such a note is not a handy work of a man with sound mind and sense. Smt. Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. before the Investigation Officer. She stated that the deceased always indulged in drinking wine and was not doing any work. She also stated that on 26th July, 1998 her husband came to them in an inebriated condition and was abusing her and other members of the family. The prosecution story, if believed, shows that the quarrel between the deceased and the appellant had taken place on 25th July, 1998 and if the deceased came back to the house again on 26th July, 1998, it cannot be said that the suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that had taken pace on 25th July, 1998. Viewed from the aforesaid circumstances independently, we are clearly of the view that the ingredients of 'abetment' are totally absent in the instant case for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. It is in the statement of the wife that the deceased always remained in a drunkened condition. It is a common knowledge that excessive drinking leads one to debauchery. It clearly appeared, therefore, that the deceased was a victim of his own conduct unconnected with the quarrel that had ensued on 25th July, 1998 where the appellant is stated to have used abusive language. Taking the totality of materials on record and facts and circumstances of the case into consideration, it will lead to irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone, and none else, is responsible for his death. In the result, M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 13 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) this appeal succeeds. The charge-sheet dated 2nd July, 2001, framed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sihora, in Sessions Trial No.469 of 1998 for an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and the order of the High Court under challenge are hereby quashed. The appellant is on bail. His surety and bail bond shall stand discharged.
Para 13, 20, 28 and 30 of Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433 :-
13. In cross-examination, the witness mentioned that all the three deceased used to remain dejected and depressed. They however, often visited the parents and the brothers of Surjit. He disclosed that Surjit had a house at Abohar. He admitted that at no point of time, Surjit and her daughters did complain to him about any threat extended by the accused persons. The witness disclosed that though Surjit had expended substantial amount on the coaching of her daughter, she failed in the examination, for which she was morose and anguished. The witness opined that Surjit and her daughters had committed suicide out of grief for their missing husband/father.
According to him, the accused persons were not in any manner responsible for their death.
Section 306 of the Code prescribes the punishment for abetment of suicide and is designed thus:
"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."
28. Significantly, this Court underlined by referring to its earlier pronouncement in Orilal Jaiswal (supra) that courts have to be extremely careful in assessing the facts and circumstances of each case to ascertain as to whether cruelty had been meted out to the victim and that the same had induced the person to M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 14 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) end his/her life by committing suicide, with the caveat that if the victim committing suicide appears to be hypersensitive to ordinary petulance, discord and differences in domestic life, quite common to the society to which he or she belonged and such factors were not expected to induce a similarly circumstanced individual to resort to such step, the accused charged with abetment could not be held guilty. The above view was reiterated in Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu vs. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC
707.
30. In Pinakin Mahipatray Rawal vs. State of Gujarat (2013) 10 SCC 48, this Court, with reference to Sectioon 113A of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, while observing that the criminal law amendment bringing forth this provision was necessitated to meet the social challenge of saving the married woman from being ill-treated or forcing to commit suicide by the husband or his relatives demanding dowry, it was underlined that the burden of proving the preconditions permitting the presumption as ingrained therein, squarely and singularly lay on the prosecution. That the prosecution as well has to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased had committed suicide on being abetted by the person charged under Section 306 IPC, was emphasised.
Para 11, 18, 19, 25, 28, 30, 39, 47, 52 of the judgment of Madras High Court dated 31/07/2015 passed in V. Venkataraman vs. State (2015) 3 MLJ (Criminal) 669 :-
11. According to the learned Senior counsel for the appellant, the prosecution must prove the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts. Suspicion, however, strong may not take the place of legal proof. In this connection, the learned Senior counsel cited GAMBHIR VS.
STATE MAHARASHTRA (AIR 1982 SC 1157).
However, in the present case, the prosecution has M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 15 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) not established the charges levelled against the accused beyond all reasonable doubts.
18. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, the opinion of an handwriting expert is hearsay in nature. It cannot be elevated to the status of a substantial piece of evidence. In this connection, the learned Senior counsel cited RAHIM KHAN VS. KHURSHID AHMED AND OTHERS (AIR 1975 SC 290)
19. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellant also contended that merely because a suicide note has been left by the deceased it cannot be automatically concluded that the deceased died due to the abetment of the accused.
25. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the entire materials on record, the impugned judgment and also the decisions cited by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant.
28. The offences, allegations, however, serious they may be, they have to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Suspicion, however, strong may not take the place of legal proof. Surmises and conjunctures cannot be elevated to the level of legal proof. Thus, the offences alleged must be established beyond all reasonable doubts by legal evidence.
30. Section 306 IPC seeks to punsih those who abets the commission of suicide by other. It requires mental element. Such a requirement can be read into in Section 306 IPC by reading Section 107 IPC.
39. Generally, the person who commits suicide used to/liked to leave a suicide note naming certain person as responsible for his committing suicide. Merely because a person has been so named in the suicide note we are not to immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender under Section 306 I.P.C.
M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 16(Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.)
47. Sometimes, the decision to commit suicide might be taken by the victim himself/herself, unaccompanied by any act or instigation etc. on the part of the accused. A person may die like a coward. On his failure in the examination, a student may commit suicide. They are weak minded. They are persons of frail mentality. For their foolish mentality/decision, another person cannot be blamed.
52. As held in MANI VS. INSPECTOR OF POLICE, J-3, GUINDY POLICE STATION, CHENNAI {2014 (3) MLJ CRL. 18} merely because a person who has committed suicide has left a suicide note immediately one cannot jump to a conclusion that it is enough to mulct the accused with criminal liability under Section 306 IPC. The contents of the suicide note has to be analysed to find out whether it contains any incriminating information in the nature of instigation, provocation, forcing the victim to commit suicide.
6. At the end of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner referred suicide-note of the deceased, which also I am re-producing here :-
"eSa uhrk vuqjkxh vius iwjs gks'k esa ;s letter fy[k jgh gWaw eSa viuh life ls cgqr frustrate gks xbZ gwW lc [kRe gks x;k gS vkSj bldk ftEesnkj flQZ ,d balku Mr. Anil sen gSa ftus eq>s etcqj dj fn;k gS ;s djus ij ml balku ds lkFk eSus partnership esa business chalu fd;k igys ;s gh decide Fkk fd eSa flQZ 1 Lac Rs. yxkÅaxh vkSj ckfd tks Hkh expense gksxas oks yxk;sxk vkSj eSa field ij working d:axh ij /khjs&2 mlus eq>s ijs'kku djuk pkyw dj fn;k vkSj dqN fnu ckn oks vkSj iSls dh demand djus yxk vkSj partnership NksM+us dks force djus yxk mldk tourcher bruk cM+ x;k fd mlus eq>s fnokyh ds le; ls salary nsuk can dj fn;kA eq>ls xyrh ;s gqbZ fd M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 17 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) eSuas ml ij trust fd;k vkSj fdlh Hkh izdkj ds documents ml ls ugh fy;s oks ges'kk Vkyrk jgk tc Hkh eSusa mlls oks documents ekaxs esjs vykok Hkh cgka dbZ vkSj partner Fks mUgksus eq>s cksyk fd vki iSls ugh ns ldrs rks partnership NksM+ nks vkSj employee dh rjg blh company esa join dj yks ij tSls gh eSus viuh partnership NksM+h oks iyV x;k vkSj eq>s+ job ij ugh j[kkA mlus eq>s dksbZ Hkh paper ugha fn;k u gh dksbZ experience certificate. eSa ,d vPNh job djrh Fkh mlds ncko esa vkdj eSus ;s business fd;k vkSj vkt esjs ikl dqN Hkh ugh cpkA esjk iwjk career spoil gks x;kA dgha apply Hkh ugh dj ik jgh gwWa D;ksafd dksbZ document ugh gS dbZ ckj mlls tkds fxM+fxM+k pqdh gWaw jks pqdh gwW ij mls dksbZ mlj ughA eSa viuk ?kj dbZ lkyksa igys NksM+ pqdh Fkh] dqN cuus dh pkg esa lkspk Fkk dqN cu tkÅaxh rc vius ikik dks cksywaxh ij bl balku us dgh dk ugh NksM+kA brus eghus xqtj x;s ?kj esa jgrs gq;s ?kj dk fdjk;k [kpsZ lc [kqn ls manage djuk iM+rk gS ij vc gks ugh jgkA oSls Hkh 12 lky ls bl field esa struggle dj jgh gwWa being a lady esjs lkFk oSls gh fnDdr Fkh vkSj bl Anil sen us lc dqN [kRe dj fn;kA esjh ekSr dk ftEesnkj flQZ Anil sen gS NksM+uk er ml balku dks ftl ls oks fdlh vkSj ds career ds lkFk u [ksysaA iSls&iSls dk eksgrkt cu dj jg xbZ gWwA sorry papa eSa vkidks dqN dj ds ugh fn[kk ikbZA lkspk Fkk ,d lqnj lk ?kj cukÅaxh vkSj vkidksa gift d:axh ij dj ugh ikbZ ekQ djuk eq>sA vkSj ,d ckr vkSj vkidh utj esa eSusa cgqr xyfr;ka dh gksaxh ij eSus lc vius career ds fy;s fd;k fd vki cl ,d ckj ;s cksy ns fd ;s esjh csVh gS Proud se. Luv u papa and sorry"
7. It is further contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that suicide-note is written in a dairy but page No.25 of the running page, 23-26 is missing. In her suicide-note the deceased has pointed out her frustration due to her failure in the business or in the life and submitted that the petitioner M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 18 (Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.) cannot be held responsible for the same and he is entitled for bail.
8. Relying on the facts mentioned in the suicide-note, learned Public Prosecutor has briefly submitted that the facts of the present case are different from the facts of the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He submitted that the sole reason for suicide by the deceased is harassment extended and constant pressure created by the petitioner and there is ample evidence to held him responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
9. Learned Public Prosecutor further stated that now the police has completed the investigation and charge-sheet is filed and also trial will not take much time. Let the learned trial Court be appreciated all the evidence, which would be produced by the prosecution and reached on a correct and lawful conclusion.
10. The learned public prosecutor further asserted that the petitioner has not challenged the earlier order of this Court passed on merits, therefore, without any substantial change in the facts and circumstances, this Court cannot take a step back or cannot deviate from the earlier order passed on merits, only on the basis of some more similar type of authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The authority to change the earlier order without any change in the facts and circumstance lies only in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner has not opted that recourse, therefore, this Court is not entitle to change its earlier verdict and the present petition is also liable to be dismissed.
M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 19(Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.)
11. I have considered rival contentions of both the parties.
12. Admittedly, in my earlier order, I have considered all grounds taken by the petitioner and considering the nature and gravity of the incident and evidence available against the petitioner in the case diary, dismissed the petition, but did not make elaborate comments as at the time of consideration of the prayer for bail under Section 439, Cr.P.C. it is not required for the Court to make detailed documentation in support of or against the prayer for bail. It is the duty of the Court to apply its mind to the material in the case-diary and to record the reasoning in substance about existence or non-existence of prima facie case, but it is not expected to express opinion on the facts or the evidence available against the accused while granting or rejecting the bail because it may cause prejudice to the accused, may affect adversely the trial and may also violate the most important right of the petitioner of fair trial, therefore, I did not make comments in detail or expressed my views regarding the nature or reliability of the evidence, but certainly I have considered all of them and also the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and after going through the evidence and its impact in totality, I was of the view that this was not a fit case for grant of bail.
13. In Anil Kumar Yadav v. State (NCT) of Delhi and Anr. AIR 2017 SUPREME COURT 5398 Hon'ble the Supreme Court has stated that 'the Court must not undertake meticulous examination of the evidence collected by the police and comment on the same. Such assessment of evidence and premature comments are likely to deprive the accused of a fair trial'.
M.Cr.C. No.35063/18 20(Anil Kumar Sen S/o Late Suresh Sen Vs. State of M.P.)
14. This time also I have perused all the authorities cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner but I am of the opinion that the facts of the present case are quite distinguishable.
15. Considering the suicide-note, I am still not of the opinion that in this case bail should be granted to the petitioner, particularly in the light of the objection raised by the learned Public Prosecutor and without finding any substantial change in the facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, the petition is dismissed.
(Virender Singh) Judge Aiyer* Digitally signed by Jagdishan Aiyer Date: 2018.10.05 15:23:59 +05'30'