BA1/1317/2022 of RAHUL Vs STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

First Bail Application No.1317 of 2022

Rahul

...Applicant

Versus

State of Uttarakhand

...Respondent

Present:-

Ms. Prabha Naithani, Advocate for the applicant. Mr. B.P.S. Mer, Brief Holder for the State.

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Applicant Rahul is in judicial custody in Case Crime No. 424 of 2022, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Kotwali Manglaur, District Haridwar. He has sought his released on bail.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. According to the FIR, the applicant used to molest the deceased, widow with four children. He did it quite frequent. On 07.04.2022, in the afternoon, the applicant, in fact, had scuffle with the deceased and he had thrown mobile of the deceased. In the same evening, he abused the deceased. On 09.04.2022, the deceased committed suicide.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that the alleged incident of maarpeet took place on 07.04.2022 and the death of the deceased took place on

09.04.2022. There is no abetment by the applicant. Hence, it is case fit for bail.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the informant would submit that, in fact, the applicant had made the life of the deceased difficult. He would follow her and molest her. She was helpless widow woman with four children. On 07.04.2022, the applicant took the mobile phone of the deceased and threw it away. He insulted her and humiliated her in the presence of the villagers and father-in-law of the deceased. She could not bear it and consumed poison. It is stated that it amounts to consistent harassment, which is abetment. The dying declaration has been referred to in support of her arguments.

6. Learned State counsel adopts the same arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the informant.

7. few facts are admitted that the applicant was widow with four children. She was about 40 years of age. The applicant is 25 years of age. The dying declaration of the deceased was recorded. She has stated that earlier she used to talk to the applicant but she stopped talking to him two years prior to her death. But, the applicant was not leaving; he was after her; he would molest her; he, in fact, snatched her mobile phone; he humiliated her in the presence of villagers.

8. Abetment includes instigation, intentional aid and conspiracy in an act. Basically it is kind of reading somebody’s mind.

9. Section 306 IPC is also an act, which is directly related to the mental condition of the accused. In fact, did the action of terminating life of the deceased had any bearing with any act of the applicant, that is what the case is. In the instant case, the deceased had stated as to how she was harassed, tortured and humiliated by the applicant.

10. In the case of Amit Kapoor vs. Ramesh Chandra and another (2012) 9 SCC 460, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed “All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence” (para 35).

11. Having considered the entirety of facts, this Court does not see any reason to grant bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the bail application deserves to be rejected.

12. The bail application is rejected.

Jitendra

(Ravindra Maithani, J.)01.12.2022