Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 13 March, 2023
Author: Sanjay Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Dwivedi
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY DWIVEDI
ON THE 13 th OF MARCH, 2023
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 61113 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
1. RAJENDRA TRIPATHI S/O LT. SHRI SHEETAL
PRASAD TRIPATHI, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
KITAHA, P.S. JAITWARA, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
2. PAPPU ALIAS RAJKUMAR SHUKLA S/O SHRI
UMASHANKAR SHUKLA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,
OCCUPATION: AGRICULTURIST R/O VILLAGE
BERAHANA, P.S. SABAHPUR, DISTRICT SATNA
(MADHYA PRADESH)
.....APPLICANTS
(BY SHRI SANKALP KOCHAR - ADVOCATE)
AND
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH THROUGH P.S
SABAHPUR DISTRICT SATNA (MADHYA PRADESH)
.....RESPONDENT
(SHRI DINESH TRIPATHI - ADVOCATE FOR OBJECTOR)
(SHRI S.K. MALVIYA - PANEL LAWYER)
This application coming on for admission this day, the court passed the
following:
ORDER
This is the second application filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail.
T h e applicants are apprehending their arrest in Crime No.120/2022 registered at Police Station Sabhapur, District Satna for the offence punishable under Sections 306/34 of IPC.
Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/14/2023 12:02:26 PM 2Counsel for the applicants moved this application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. Though it is a second bail application, earlier bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to move a regular bail application before the trial court vide order dated 03.09.2022 in M.Cr.C No.42307 of 2022.
He submits that instead of moving the regular bail application, he has also moved 482 petition. That is registered as M.Cr.C. No.58992 of 2022 for quashing the F.I.R, in which, he has claimed that no coercive action may be taken against the present applicants. But the Court declined to grant such a relief saying that the bail application can be moved by the applicants. He submits that the second bail application under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C. can also be moved because there is no bar in moving the said application. He further submits that looking to the contents of F.I.R. and the nature of incident occurred, offence of Section 306 of the IPC is not made out.
As per the case of prosecution, the present applicants entered into an agreement with the father-in-law of the deceased for purchasing the property which belongs to the father-in-law. Father-in-law was not happy with the attitude of his son and therefore he was not inclined to give of his property to his son and therefore there was some dispute pending between the father-in-law of the deceased and his son.
Counsel for the applicants submits that present applicants had only entered into the agreement with the father-in-law of the deceased. Although father-in-law has filed a suit before the Tehsildar against the deceased and her husband for raising construction over the property, in which although stay has been granted, despite that they are raising the construction. He submits that merely because applicants would try to evict the deceased and her husband Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/14/2023 12:02:26 PM 3 from the occupied portion which belongs to the father-in-law of the deceased, she committed suicide. He submits that under such circumstances, there was no abetment and there was no any action which could be considered to be abetment for committing suicide by the deceased and therefore offence under Section 306 of the IPC is not made out.
Although, Shri S.K. Malviya, learned panel lawyer opposed the bail application and submits that the present applicants after entering into the agreement with the father-in-law of the deceased tried to evict them and they were using unlawful means for evicting the deceased and her husband and as such she committed suicide.
Counsel for the objector also supported the submissions made by the counsel for the State and submits that trying to evict the deceased and her husband unlawfully would amount to intention for abetting them to commit suicide and as such he submits that the bail application deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that once bail application was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to move regular bail application, the said liberty should have been availed and the second bail application cannot be entertained. Counsel for the objector has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed in the case of Ude Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana reported as (2019) 17 SCC 301 and counsel for the applicant as well as counsel for the objector have also placed reliance upon the judgement passed in the case of M.Arjunan Vs. State represented by its Inspector of Police reported as (2019) 3 SCC 315. Considering the judgment cited by the counsel for the objector as well as counsel for applicant, I am of the opinion that second bail application under Section 438 of Cr.P.C is maintainable and prime facie the present applicants are Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/14/2023 12:02:26 PM 4 entitled to get the benefit of 438 of Cr.P.C. Considering the aforesaid, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this application is allowed.
It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants be released on bail upon their furnishing a bail bond in the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lac) each with one solvent surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Station House Officer/Arresting Officer of the Police Station concerned.
The applicants shall abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Certified Copy as per rules.
(SANJAY DWIVEDI) JUDGE Prar Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRARTHANA SURYAVANSHI Signing time: 3/14/2023 12:02:26 PM