Jitendra v. State of U.P

Court No. - 71 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 12164 of 2023 Applicant :- Jitendra Opposite Party :- State of U.P. Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Sharma,Sunil Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Shekhar Kumar Yadav,J.

¶1Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State.

¶2Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record.

¶3This anticipatory bail application (under section 438 Cr.P.C.) has been moved seeking bail in Case Crime No. 0721 of 2010, under sections 498-A, 306, 506 IPC, P.S. Akbarpur, District Kanpur Dehat during the pendency of application.

¶4Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended by learned counsel for the applicant that the marriage of deceased was fixed with the son of the applicant but subsequently the applicant denied from solemnizing the marriage. On account of this reason, the deceased committed suicide. It is further submitted that no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against the applicant as there was no abatement for commission of the alleged offence. It is further submitted that earlier applicant approached this Courts court by filing Application U/s 482 No. 31043 of 2011 in which interim protection was granted to the applicant vide order dated 31.10.2011. It is further submitted that the said interim protection was vacated in the light of the Apex Court decision rendered in Asian Resurfacing Case and the applicant has been summoned. The applicant is having definite apprehension that he may be arrested by the police any time.

¶5It is further submitted that as per averments made in the FIR as well as the statements of the witnesses no offence is made out against the applicant. It is further submitted that the main allegation is against the father of the applicant. It is further submitted that unless and until the intention to provoke or instigate to a person to commit suicide is not present therefore, the offence under Section 306 IPC would not be made out. It is further submitted that the offence of abatement by instigation depends upon the intention of the person who abates and not upon the act which is done by the person who has abated. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the case of Praveen Pradhan Vs State of Uttarakhand reported in SCC 2012 (10) 478 and M Mohan (2011) 3 SCC 626.

¶6Learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail, but could not dispute the said facts.

¶7Hence without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case and considering the nature of accusations and antecedents of applicant, he is directed to be enlarged on anticipatory bail as per the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98. The future contingencies regarding anticipatory bail being granted to applicant shall also be taken care of as per the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court.

¶8In the event of arrest, the applicant shall be released on anticipatory bail. Let the applicant Jitendra involved in the aforesaid crime be released on anticipatory bail on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/-with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court concerned with the following conditions:-

(1) The applicant shall co-operate with the Investigating Officer during investigation and shall report to the Investigating Officer as and when required for the purpose of conducting investigation;

(2) The applicant 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 him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and

(3) The applicant shall not leave the country during the currency of trial without prior permission from the concerned trial Court.

(4) The applicant shall surrender his passport, if any, to the concerned Court forthwith. His passport will remain in custody of the concerned Court.

(5) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence and 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 to ensure presence of the applicant.

(6) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail, the Court concerned may take appropriate action in accordance with law and judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sushila Aggarwal vs. State (NCT of Delhi)- 2020 SCC Online SC 98.

(7) 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 his in accordance with law.

¶9In default or misuse of any of the conditions, the Public Prosecutor/ Investigating Officer/ first informant-complainant is at liberty to file appropriate application for cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to the applicant.

¶10With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 29.11.2023 RavindraKSingh High Court of Judicature at Allahabad