Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sonika Sharma vs State Of Punjab on 5 March, 2025
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210
CRM-M-59976-2024
Reserved on : 25.02.2025
Pronounced on: 05.03.2025
Sonika Sharma
. . . Petitioner(s)
Versus
State of Punjab
. . . Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH
PRESENT: Mr. Jasdeep Singh Salooja, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
****
SANJAY VASHISTH, J.
1. Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 482 of the BNSS,
2023 (earlier Section 438 Cr.P.C.), is for grant of anticipatory bail to the
petitioner, who has been booked in a criminal case arising out of First
Information Report, as detailed hereunder:-
Name & age of FIR No. Date Section(s) Police Station District
Petitioner (s)
Sonika Sharma, 0153 29.07.2024 108 of BNS, 2023 Khanna City-2 Khanna
aged about 34 years
2. Complainant – Yogesh Sharma (father-in-law of the petitioner)
got lodged the aforementioned FIR by recording the facts that his son
Gaurav Sharma, aged 36 years, performed marriage with Sonika Sharma
(petitioner herein) on 28.01.2019. Gaurav Sharma was working as Project
Manager in IT Company at NOIDA, and he had left home on 02.07.2024,
without informing anyone, in his car bearing registration No. DL-9CU-3253,
make Honda City. On 03.07.2024, a call was received by the complainant,
1 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 -2-
informing him that Gaurav Sharma was found near Khanna in the car, after
consuming poisonous medicine and is in unconscious condition, but later on,
died in Civil Hospital, Khanna. On 04.07.2024, complainant – Yogesh
kumar along with petitioner – Sonika Sharma and other relatives reached
Khanna, and there statement of the petitioner was recorded under Section
194 of BNSS, 2023. Dead body was cremated on 05.07.2024. In the FIR,
complainant also got recorded that his son Gaurav Sharma had typed a
message from his Mobile No.98111-09071, and had sent it to his Mobile
No.98111-53307. Message was in Hindi language, which is also mentioned
in FIR. The same is also reproduced here-under in extracted form:-
” I am writing this with full consciousness, I am writing
that I am upset with Sonika. Her only wish has been from five
years that I should shift my mother to some old age home. I am
tired of making her understand one thing that mom’s mental
state is not right but she is not understanding this thing”…
In the end, it is also mentioned that;
“I want a bit of rest, I am sitting in the car, sending the
location”
Complainant handed-over the printed copy of the message
along with mobile phone of his son ‘Gaurav Sharma’.
3. Petitioner’s counsel argues that the marriage of the petitioner
and deceased ‘Gaurav Sharma’ was performed on 28.01.2019 and from the
said wedlock, a child was born on 14.01.2021, and another female child was
also born on 20.09.2023, and both the children are staying with their mother
i.e. petitioner herein. Further submits that as per the allegations, ‘Gaurav
Sharma’ had left the house on 02.07.2024 and the alleged suicide was
2 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 -3-
committed on 03.07.2024. Subsequently, dead body was cremated on
05.07.2024, but by that time, no complaint or any nature was moved by the
complainant to the police.
It is for the first time on 29.07.2024, the present case i.e. FIR
No.153, dated 29.07.2024, was registered under Section 108 of BNS, 2023,
in which, petitioner has been made accused at the instance of her father-in-
law.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argues that the
essential ingredients of Section 107 of BNS, 2023 (equivalent to Section 107
of IPC) are not fulfilled, and therefore, there is no abetment on the part of
the petitioner. As such, the petitioner cannot be held liable for the suicidal
act committed by her husband, Gaurav Sharma.
He further submits that while there may have been occasional
family disputes between the deceased and the petitioner, such quarrels do not
imply that if one spouse commits suicide, the other should automatically be
held responsible for the act, which is an independent and unlawful decision
of the deceased.
Moreover, had there been any significant and serious issue
between the petitioner and the deceased, the complainant could have taken
immediate steps and lodged a report soon after learning about the death of
his son, Gaurav Sharma. However, in this case, the FIR has been lodged
after a considerable delay of approximately 25-26 days. This delay suggests
that the FIR may have been registered with manipulation and ulterior
motive, just to oust the petitioner from her matrimonial home by shifting the
blame of her husband’s death upon her.
5. In the second limb of the argument, petitioner’s counsel argues
3 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 -4-
that even if the allegations, which are tried to be established from the mobile
message are accepted to be true and correct, it cannot be assumed that it was
only, the petitioner, who was responsible for the act of suicide committed by
her husband. The legal recourse is always there to find out the solution or to
come out of the problems.
Emotional or mental weakness or any kind of work pressure or
social pressure, if any exists, someone else, who is staying with such a
person cannot be held responsible for an independent and unlawful act of the
person like the husband of the petitioner, who committed suicide.
Besides, the solitary evidence of mobile message is not an
acceptable, because same is not admissible at this stage, un-till same is
authenticated with a certificate required under Section 65 of the Evidence
Act.
6. Counsel further points out that there is no instance of moving of
any complaint before any authority or police before the death of her
husband, in regard to the family disputes arising during the period of last
about more than 05 years. Even staying of both the children along with their
mother (petitioner herein) is enough to assume that the behaviour as
projected by the complainant through alleged suicide note is so cruel or
irreparable.
7. In support of his submissions, counsel relies upon the following
judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Apex Court and by this Court:-
(i) Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde v. The State of Maharashtra &
Anr., 2024(4) RCR (Criminal) 165;
(ii) Criminal Appeal No.221 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition
(Crl.) No. 11868 of 2023), titled as, “Mahendra Awase v. The
State of Madhya Pradesh” (D.O.D. : 17.01.2025) : 2025 INSC4 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616CRM-M-59976-2024 -5-
76;
(iii) Prakash and others v. The State of Maharashtra and another,
2025(1) RCR (Criminal) 244 : Law Finder Doc Id #2675945;
(iv) A.R. Madhav Rao and others v. State of Haryana and another,
2018(3) AICLR 451 : Law Finder Doc Id #1090866.
8. With the help of the judgments cited above, counsel submits
that petitioner is a woman and her custodial interrogation would not serve
any useful purpose to the prosecution, more for the reason that nothing
material is to be recovered from her possession.
Further submits that once the petitioner is herself ready to join
investigation and to fully cooperate with the investigating agency, she is
entitled for the concession of anticipatory bail and accordingly, prays for the
same.
9. On the other hand, while strongly opposing the contentions of
the petitioner’s counsel, learned State counsel submits that during the course
of investigation, on 04.12.2024, a supplementary statement of complainant
was recorded, who had received a text message from his son, Gaurav
Sharma on 02.07.2024 at 09:00/09:30 PM. Complainant also produced
screen shot of the message of Gaurav Sharma (deceased).
Learned State counsel refers the reproduction part of the said
message, as reproduced in paragraph No.4 of the status report, and threupon,
submits that there was no alternative situation for the deceased and under
compelling circumstances, he had to commit suicide after falling under
tremendous pressure due to unbearable behaviour of his wife (petitioner
herein).
For convenience, the message sent by the deceased – Gaurav
5 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 -6-
Sharma and relied upon by the prosecution is referred in paragraph No.4 of
the status report and same is reproduced here-under in extracted form:-
” I am writing this with a clear mind.
I am completely frustrated with Sonika. For the past five years,
her only desire has been that I shift my parents to an old age home or
somewhere far away.
I am tired of explaining to her that my mother’s mental state is
not well, but she refuses to understand this. I am exhausted by her
constant quarrels. There hasn’t been a single festival where she hasn’t
created a scene.
Even when we have to go somewhere, a conflict is inevitable. I
can no longer tolerate this.
If I go somewhere, an argument is bound to happen. If we visit
someone’s house, a fight is certain. If someone visits our home, it’s
the same story.
When my father was admitted to the hospital, she caused
unnecessary disputes. When my mother was admitted, she created
major chaos at home, questioning why I was going to the hospital.
When my uncle had an accident, even on that day, she
quarrelled.
During the three deaths in the family, on all three occasions,
she argued about why I spent so much time there and why I was going
to Haridwar.
Two nights ago, when my mother was unwell, my father called
me. She locked the room that night and told me to stay with my
parents, causing unnecessary drama.
These are just a few small examples; there are so many
incidents that I cannot list them all.
Now, my patient has completely run out.
It is absolutely true that if a wife is understanding, the home is
heaven, otherwise, it is hell.
If, these days, women want husbands who live alone and are
not family-oriented, they should find orphaned men.
I know that after I am gone, a mountain of troubles will fall
upon everyone, but I have no other option now. My children, forgive
me, your mother wants to live alone. It is not my fault, but I am now
exhausted.
6 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 -7-
Sonika, you were never less important to me, but taking care of
my parents is also my responsibility. I am tired of trying to make you
understand this.
Please show this letter to Sonika’s parents.
Now I want some peace. I am sitting in the car and sending my
location.”
Thus, learned State counsel submits that petitioner does not
deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
10. I have gone through the pleadings of the petition and the
documents appended thereto, along with, status report filed by the State.
11. After hearing arguments from both the sides, and by taking note
of the alleged suicide note/WhatsApp message, a prima facie view can be
framed that marriage life of the petitioner and her husband (deceased in the
present case) was not running in smooth manner. From the message, as
relied upon by the prosecution, it appears that the deceased was more
perturbed with the unwarranted desire of the petitioner, whereby, she had
been insisting to reside separately from her parents-in-law.
Undoubtedly, there must be some reasons behind it, such as,
disliking of each other along with temperamental issues. In the said suicide
note, it does not come out that when in recent past any serious
fight/altercation took place between the petitioner and her husband or which
act had instigated the deceased to commit suicide.
12. In Rohini Sudarshan Gangurde‘s case (supra), husband of the
petitioner – wife therein, had committed suicide and the Hon’ble Apex Court
while dealing with the application for discharge, noticed as under:-
“9. In S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan, (2010) 12 SCC 190,
this court explained the concept of abetment along with necessary
ingredient for offence under Section 306 of IPC as under:
7 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616CRM-M-59976-2024 -8-
“25. 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 (2010) 12 SCC 190
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 is 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
that act must have been intended to push the deceased into such a
position that he committed suicide.”
10. In Amalendu Pal v. State of W.B., (2010) 1 SCC 707, this court
explained the parameters of Section 306 in following words:
“12. Thus, this Court has consistently taken the view that
before holding an accused guilty of an offence under Section 306
IPC, the court must scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess the evidence adduced
before it in order to find out whether the cruelty and harassment
meted out to the victim had left the victim with no other
alternative but to put an end to her life. It is also to be borne in
mind that in cases of alleged abetment of suicide there must be
proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of
suicide. Merely on the allegation of harassment without there
being any positive action proximate to the time of occurrence on
the part of the (2010) 1 SCC 707 accused which led or compelled
the person to commit suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306
IPC is not sustainable.
13. In order to bring a case within the purview of Section 306
IPC there must be a case of suicide and in the commission of the
said offence, the person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate the commission
of suicide. Therefore, the act of abetment by the person charged
with the said offence must be proved and established by the
prosecution before he could be convicted under Section 306
IPC.”
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2001) 9 SCC 618,
while explaining the meaning of ‘Instigation’, this court stated that:
“20. Instigation is to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do “an act”. To satisfy the requirement of
“instigation”, though it is not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes “instigation” must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive of the consequence.
Yet a reasonable certainty to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. Where the accused had, by his acts or
omission or by a continued (2001) 9 SCC 618. course of conduct,
created such circumstances that the deceased was left with no
other option except to commit suicide, in which case, an
“instigation” may have to be inferred. A word uttered in a fit of
anger or emotion without intending the consequences to actually
follow, cannot be said to be instigation.”
12. These principles and necessary ingredients of Section 306 and
107 of Indian Penal Code were reiterated and summarized by this court
8 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 -9-
in recent case of Gurucharan Singh vs State of Punjab, (2020) 10 SCC
200.
13. After carefully considering the facts and evidence recorded by
the courts below and the legal position established through statutory and
judicial pronouncements, we are of the view that there is no proximate
link between the marital dispute in the marriage of deceased with
appellant and the commission of suicide. The prosecution has failed to
collect any evidence to substantiate the allegations against the appellant.
The appellant has not played any active role or any positive or direct act
to instigate or aid the deceased in committing suicide. Neither the
statement of the complainant nor that of the colleagues of the deceased
as recorded by the Investigating Officer during investigation suggest any
kind of instigation by the appellant to abet the commission of suicide.
There is no allegation against the appellant of suggesting the deceased to
commit suicide at any time prior to the commission of suicide by her
husband.”
Similarly, in Mahendra Awase’s case (supra), in para No.20, the
Hon’ble Apex Court, observed as under:-
“20. This Court has, over the last several decades, repeatedly reiterated
the higher threshold, mandated by law for Section 306 IPC [Now Section
108 read with Section 45 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023] to be
attracted. They however seem to have followed more in the breach.
Section 306 IPC appears to be casually and too readily resorted to by the
police. While the persons involved in genuine cases where the threshold
is met should not be spared, the provision should not be deployed against
individuals, only to assuage the immediate feelings of the distraught
family of the deceased. The conduct of the proposed accused and the
deceased, their interactions and conversations preceding the unfortunate
death of the deceased should be approached from a practical point of
view and not divorced from day-to-day realities of life. Hyperboles
employed in exchanges should not, without anything more, be glorified
as an instigation to commit suicide. It is time the investigating agencies
are sensitised to the law laid down by this Court under Section 306 so
that persons are not subjected to the abuse of process of a totally
untenable prosecution. The trial courts also should exercise great caution
and circumspection and should not adopt a play it safe syndrome by
mechanically framing charges, even if the investigating agencies in a9 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616CRM-M-59976-2024 – 10 –
given case have shown utter disregard for the ingredients of Section
306.”
Furthermore, in Prakash and others case (supra), the Hon’ble
Apex Court, observed as under:-
“23. In the case of Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra), the appellant
before this Court was charged with having abetted the suicide by his
brother-in-law (sister’s husband). The prosecution story was that there
were strained relations between the deceased and his wife who at the
material time was staying with the appellant therein. On 25th July, 1998
the deceased went to the appellant to bring back his wife. There was a
quarrel between the appellant and the deceased who came back alone.
The deceased told his brothers and other acquaintances that the appellant
had threatened and abused him by using filthy words. On 27th July, 1998
the deceased was found dead. The deceased left a suicide note which
showed his disturbed state of mind but otherwise he blamed the appellant
for the suicide. The appellant’s petition for quashing of the charge-sheet
filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the High Court which
led him to file an appeal before this Court which came to be allowed.
While taking note of the disturbed state of mind of the deceased as was
evident from the suicide note and the lack of intention on the part of the
accused to abet the commission of suicide by the deceased, the Court
held that there was a time gap of 48 hours between the abusive language
being used and the commission of suicide. As such, owing to the passage
of 48 hours, giving the deceased enough time to reflect, there was no
proximate link between the words uttered and the act of suicide. This
Court observed as follows:
“8. In Swamy Prahaladdas v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3)
SCC 438 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 943] the appellant was charged for an
offence under Section 306 IPC on the ground that the appellant
during the quarrel is said to have remarked to the deceased “to go
and die”. This Court was of the view that mere words uttered by
the accused to the deceased “to go and die” were not even prima
facie enough to instigate the deceased to commit suicide.
9. In Mahendra Singh v. State of M.P. [1995 Supp (3) SCC
731 : 1995 SCC (Cri) 1157] the appellant was charged for an
offence under Section 306 IPC basically based upon the dying
declaration of the deceased, which reads as under: (SCC p. 731,
para 1)
“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 to10 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616CRM-M-59976-2024 – 11 –
die by burning.”
10. This Court, considering the definition of “abetment” under
Section 107 IPC, found that the charge and conviction of the
appellant for an offence under Section 306 is not sustainable
merely on the allegation of harassment of the deceased. This
Court further held that neither of the ingredients of abetment are
attracted on the statement of the deceased.
11. In Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2001) 9 SCC
618] this Court was considering the charge framed and the
conviction for an offence under Section 306 IPC 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 herself on fire. Acquitting the accused this
Court said: (SCC p. 620)
“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 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.”
12. Reverting to the facts of the case, both the courts below
have erroneously accepted the prosecution story that the suicide
by the deceased is the direct result of the quarrel that had taken
place on 25-7- 1998 wherein it is alleged that the appellant had
used abusive language and had reportedly told the deceased “to go
and die”. For this, courts relied on a statement of Shashi Bhushan,
brother of the deceased, made under Section 161 CrPC when
reportedly the deceased, after coming back from the house of the
appellant, told him that the appellant had humiliated him and
abused him with filthy words. The statement of Shashi Bhushan,
recorded under Section 161 CrPC is annexed as Annexure P-3 to
this appeal and going through the statement, we find that he has
not stated that the deceased had told him that the appellant had
asked him “to go and die”. Even if we accept the prosecution
story that the appellant did tell the deceased “to go and die”, that
itself does not constitute the ingredient of “instigation”. The word
“instigate” denotes incitement or urging to do some drastic or
inadvisable action or to stimulate or incite. Presence of mens rea,
therefore, is the necessary concomitant of instigation. It is
common knowledge that the words uttered in a quarrel or on the
spur of the moment cannot be taken to be uttered with mens rea. It
is in a fit of anger and emotion. Secondly, the alleged abusive
words, said to have been told to the deceased were on 25- 7-1998
ensued by a quarrel. The deceased was found hanging on 27-7-
1998. Assuming that the deceased had taken the abusive language
seriously, he had enough time in between to think over and reflect
and, therefore, it cannot be said that the abusive language, which
had been used by the appellant on 25-7-1998 drove the deceased
to commit suicide. Suicide by the deceased on 27- 7-1998 is not
proximate to the abusive language uttered by the appellant on 25-
7-1998. The fact that the deceased committed suicide on 27-7-
1998 would itself clearly point out that it is not the direct result of
11 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 – 12 –
the quarrel taken place on 25- 7-1998 when it is alleged that the
appellant had used the abusive language and also told the
deceased to go and die. This fact had escaped notice of the courts
below.
………….
14. 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 the handiwork of a man with a sound mind
and sense. Smt Neelam Sengar, wife of the deceased, made a
statement under Section 161 CrPC 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 26-7-1998 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 25-7-1998 and if the deceased came
back to the house again on 26-7-1998, it cannot be said that the
suicide by the deceased was the direct result of the quarrel that
had taken place on 25- 7-1998. 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 IPC. It is in the statement of the
wife that the deceased always remained in a drunken condition. It
is 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 25- 7-1998 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 the irresistible conclusion that it is the deceased and he alone,
and none else, is responsible for his death.” (emphasis supplied)”
Additionally, the Single Bench of this High Court in A.R.
Madhav Rao‘s case (supra), noticed in paragraphs No.23, 24 & 25, as
under:-
“23. 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
one cannot immediately jump to the conclusion that he is an offender
under Section 306 I.P.C.
24. The contents of the suicide note and other attending circumstances
have to be examined to find out whether it is abetment within the
meaning of Section 306 I.P.C. read with Section 107 I.P.C. There may be
a case where in the suicide note victim had named a person, who is12 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616CRM-M-59976-2024 – 13 –
responsible for his committing suicide, but, on proper analysis, Section
306 I.P.C. may not be attracted to him.
25. The overall analysis is required to be examined with the following
incidents like if a lover commits suicide due to love failure, if a student
commits suicide because of his poor performance in the examination, a
client commits suicide because his case is dismissed, the lady, examiner,
lawyer respectively cannot be held to have abetted the commission of
suicide. For the wrong decision taken by a coward, fool, idiot, a man of
weak mentality, a man of frail mentality, another person cannot be
blamed as having abetted his committing suicide. In the present case, the
suicide note shows that deceased Iqbal Asif Khan is stated to have
compelled himself to prepare draft and presenting petition before the
Allahabad High Court which was against the interest of the company to
that extent he had assumed the things. Consequently, company would be
put into loss and members of the family would be affected, for this kind
of statement in the suicide note, petitioners cannot be blamed. The
conclusion would be deceased – Iqbal Asif Khan died like a coward.
Instead of protecting the family, he perished like an unsuccessful man in
life foolishly. For this, how can the petitioners be directly blamed. In the
absence of any specific instigation by the petitioners to the extent that
they have advised or suggested or compelled the deceased Iqbal Asif
Khan to prepare draft and presenting petition against the interest of the
company. 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. One has to analyse and examine the contents of the suicide note to
find out whether it contains any incriminating information in the nature
of instigation, provocation, forcing the victim to commit suicide.”
13. It is yet to be ascertained by the Court whether there was any
interaction or conversation preceding the unfortunate death in this case.
Undoubtedly, collection of evidence during the investigation
and its subsequent proving before the trial court will play a crucial role in
determining the facts.
14. It would also be examined whether the deceased, took a drastic
step of finishing his life due to the regular and constant instigation of the
13 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 – 14 –
petitioner or same was the result of weakness of his own mental health.
Because in the Single Bench judgment of this Court rendered in A.R.
Madhav Rao‘s case (supra), a situation has been dealt with, whether on
taking a wrong decision taken by the coward, fool, idiot, a man of weak
mentality, someone else can be blamed for it or not ?
All the aforementioned issues are still to be examined by the
trial Judge after completion of investigation.
15. At this stage, there doesn’t appear to be any substantial
material, which requires to be recovered from the possession of the
petitioner, such as, weapon etc., because the allegations are not such.
Petitioner is neither a registered nor an habitual criminal, which may cause
any threat to the witnesses or may influence them in any manner.
Furthermore, two minor children, who are aged about 04 years and 1½
years, respectively, would naturally require their mother’s care in their daily
lives.
Moreover, neither there is no material produced by the parties,
nor is there any record available regarding any litigation initiated by the
petitioner or her deceased husband before any Court of Law. Additionally,
no complaint or similar document has been presented before this Court that
could provide a tentative idea about the nature of the relationship between
the petitioner and her deceased husband. Furthermore, it also remains
unclear where the petitioner was staying at the time of the incident.
16. Considering the aforementioned parameters and the factors,
which are yet to be gone into by the trial Court after having the evidence
before it, and also by considering the judgments relied upon by counsel for
the petitioner, as discussed and noticed here-above, I deem it proper to
14 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:031616
CRM-M-59976-2024 – 15 –
extend the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, who is a woman
and the mother of two minor children.
Thus, petitioner is directed to join the investigation on or before
21.03.2025, and also, as and when required to do so by the Investigating
Agency. In the event of her arrest, petitioner shall be released on ad-interim
bail, subject to her furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting
Officer. Petitioner shall also be abide by all the conditions laid down under
Section 482(2) of BNSS, 2023.
Petitioner shall provide her complete contact details, viz., her
full residential address, contact number(s), and email ID etc., to the
Investigating Agency at the time of joining the investigation.
17. Besides, it is directed that petitioner would hand over her
passport to the Investigating Agency or to Court concerned, if she possesses.
Otherwise, would submit an affidavit, disclosing the fact that she does not
possess any passport.
It is also directed that before leaving country any time during
trial, petitioner would seek prior permission of the Court.
18. Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
However, anything noticed here-above shall not be construed to
be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case(s).
Pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY VASHISTH)
JUDGE
March 05, 2025
J.Ram
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
15 of 15
::: Downloaded on – 06-03-2025 04:54:41 :::
[ad_1]
Source link