Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Rammanohar S/O Late Birdichand vs State Of Rajasthan on 18 May, 2022
Author: Farjand Ali
Bench: Farjand Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 5613/2022
Rammanohar S/o Late Birdichand, Aged About 50 Years, R/o
Ward No. 30, Bairwa Mohalla, Near Bus Stand , Lalsot, Police
Station Lalsot, District Dausa ( Presently Confined At Dausa
District Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6778/2022
Harkesh S/o Goverdhan, Aged About 50 Years, R/o Matlana, P.s
Lalsot Distt Dausa ( Presently Accused Petitioner Is Confined At
District Jail Dausa)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6819/2022
Jitendra Kumar Gothwal Son Of Ghasilal Gothwal, Aged About 48
Years, R/o Near Primary Health Centre, Shivad, P.s. Chauth Ka
Barwada, Dist. Sawaimadhopur (Presently Confined At Dausa
Dist. Jail)
----Petitioner
Versus
State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 6820/2022 Babulal Meena S/o Chhote Lal Meena, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Biharipura P.s. Lalsot, Dausa (At Present Accused Is Confined In Judicial Custody At Dist. Jail, Dausa)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:38:48 PM)
(2 of 6) [CRLMB-5613/2022]
----Respondent
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7426/2022 Shivshankar @ Balya S/o Shri Nand Kishore, Aged About 42 Years, Resident Of Gulab Colony, Chandsen, P.s. Lalsot, District Dausa (Rajasthan) ( Presently Lodged In Sub District Jail Lalsot, District Dausa)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp.
----Respondent S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 7605/2022 Harkesh Son Of Meethalal, Aged About 24 Years, Resident Of Shahpura, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa (Raj.) ( At Present In Distt Jail Dausa)
----Petitioner Versus State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
----Respondent For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Swadeep Singh Hora Mr. Deepak Chauhan with Mr. Vishal Pareek Mr. Shubham Kunteta Mr. Hemant Nahta Mr. Anil Vaishnav Mr. Farooq Ahmed Mr. Sudhir Jain with Mr. Deepak Asopa & Mr. Umesh Dixit Mr. Mahander Meena For Respondent(s) : Mr. M S Saini, pp Mr. Rishipal Agarwal Mr. Rajendra Yadav AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI Order 18/05/2022
1. All bail applications are emanating from the same FIR No. 157/2022, Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa, therefore, with the (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:38:48 PM) (3 of 6) [CRLMB-5613/2022] consent of the parties, all bail applications are being decided by this common order.
2. The instant bail applications have been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. on behalf of accused-petitioners Rammanohar S/o Late Birdichand, Harkesh S/o Goverdhan, Jitendra Kumar Gothwal Son Of Ghasilal Gothwal, Babulal Meena S/o Chhote Lal Meena, Shivshankar @ Balya S/o Shri Nand Kishore & Harkesh Son Of Meethalal. The petitioners have been arrested in connection with FIR No. 157/2022 registered at Police Station Lalsot, District Dausa for the offence(s) under Sections 306, 384 & 388 of IPC.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that on 29.03.2022, the aforementioned FIR came to be lodged alleging inter alia that gynaecologist Dr. Archana Sharma committed suicide by hanging herself. A patient had died in Anand Hospital during treatment on the day before this incident. A mob of people thronged outside the hospital and made an indecorous demonstration and pressure was mounted upon the administration to lodge a case of murder against the doctor. A person named Shiv Shankar Balya Joshi, who was leading this crowd of protesters, had given threat to the hospital. Thereafter, this FIR came to be lodged by the husband of Dr. Archana Sharma, namely Dr. Sunit Upadhyay, who is also the owner of Anand Hospital, Lalsot. He stated in the FIR that a patient can die in a hospital with no fault of the doctor. It is specifically stated that Dr. Archana went through a news article published in 'Rajasthan Patrika' on the next date which perturbed the family because the published article was one-sided. It is alleged that vulture-like mobs like the one protesting outside their hospital have created a critical situation in the entire country. (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:38:48 PM)
(4 of 6) [CRLMB-5613/2022] Therefore, he implored that a case of murder be lodged against the accused persons who were protesting outside their hospital.
On the basis of the aforesaid report, the FIR got lodged and investigation had commenced. It is noted that FIR came to be lodged under Section 306, 384 & 388 of IPC. However, there is not a single word in the FIR regarding instigation to commit suicide by Dr. Archana Sharma. During the course of investigation, the petitioner Rammanohar, Harkesh, Jitendra Kumar Gothwal, Babulal Meena, Shivshankar Joshi, Harkesh S/o Meethalal were arrested and produced before the magistrate from where they have been sent to judicial custody and their regular bail applications filed under Section 439 were dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge.
4. Learned counsel for the accused-petitioner submits that a false case has been foisted against the petitioners; a suicide note purportedly written by the deceased, Dr. Archana Sharma, is available on the case diary. The suicide note does not mention the name of any accused persons. It is mentioned in the suicide note that the deceased had immense love towards her husband and children, therefore, after her death, they may not be harassed. It is further mentioned that she was not at fault and did not kill anybody. PPH is a known complication, therefore, people should stop harassing the doctors for it. It is further expressed that her death may prove her innocence; Do not harass innocent doctors, please; Love you, please do not let my children feel the absence of their mother. A photocopy of the above-noted hand-written suicide note is available on the case diary. They are behind the bars since long time. No useful purpose would be served by keeping them behind the bars till disposal of the case. (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:38:48 PM)
(5 of 6) [CRLMB-5613/2022]
5. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant have vehemently opposed the bail applications.
6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. The submission made at bar seems to be worth considering that element of abetment to commit suicide is an essential ingredient to constitute an offence under Section 306 of IPC. It is manifested from the suicide note that the names of the petitioners are not indicated. No direct allegation of abetting her commission of suicide is expressed in the suicide note. As argued, the husband of the deceased doctor, who moved the First Information Report, has not made any specific allegations regarding instigation to commit suicide by the petitioner before this Court.
Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of SS Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, reported in 2010 (12) SCC 190, has held as under:
"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. There has to be clear means to commit offence..... It also requires an active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no option and that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a position that he committed suicide."
The submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner that the deceased might be a person of hypersensitivity to ordinary petulance, discord and differences which happen in our day to day life seems to be luring. Human sensitivity of each (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:38:48 PM) (6 of 6) [CRLMB-5613/2022] individual differs from other individuals. Different people behave differently in the same situation.
After careful scanning of the case diary and material available on record, this Court does not feel persuaded to allow further incarceration of the accused-petitioners. The investigation and the result of investigation and thereafter filing of charge-sheet take time. The trial may take long time to reach a legitimate conclusion. There appears no cogent reason to keep the petitioners behind the bars till the final culmination of the matter. Thus, the petitioners deserve to be released on bail.
Considering the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this court deems it just and proper to enlarge the petitioners on bail.
7. Accordingly, the bail applications under Section 439 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioners named above shall be enlarged on bail provided each of them furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for their appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when they are called upon to do so.
(FARJAND ALI),J GAURAV SHARMA /127-132 (Downloaded on 19/05/2022 at 09:38:48 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)