Ankit Sharma vs State Of M.P

Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J

This is first application under Section 438 of CrPC for grant of anticipatory bail.

The applicant apprehends his arrest in connection with Crime No.360/2021 registered at Police Station Kotwali, District Shivpuri for offence under

Sections 306 and 506 of IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel for applicant Ankit Sharma that the applicant has been falsely implicated. He has not committed any offence. In the

present case, there is no ingredients of instigation and there is no evidence against the present applicant to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. It

is further submitted that the applicant and the deceased were friends and screenshots of chatting between the deceased and the applicant have been

filed along with the bail application. As the family members of the deceased were not agreed to marry the deceased with the present applicant,

therefore, she committed suicide. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as there is no ingredients of Section 107 of IPC in the

present case, therefore, no case under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC is made out against the present applicant. In support of his submission, learned

counsel for the applicant relied upon various judgments passed by this High Court in the cases of Shama Praveen Beg & Anr. vs. State of M.P. &

Anr., [2018 (2) JLJ 635], Manish Dubey vs. State of M.P., [2018 (3) MPWN 226] and Devendra Singh vs. State of M.P., [2007 (3) MPWN 95] and

prayed for grant of anticipatory bail to the applicant.

Learned counsel for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the applicant and has submitted that the suicide note was recovered from the

possession of the deceased wherein it is specifically stated by the deceased that she is committing suicide on account of instigation made by the

present applicant. It is further submitted that after marriage of the deceased, the applicant was continuously threatening the deceased along with her

family members and was compelling her to marry him, therefore, the deceased committed suicide. Hence, prayed to reject the anticipatory bail

application of the applicant.

In reply, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the allegation made by the State counsel that the applicant was compelling the deceased

to marry him after her marriage is totally false. In fact, the deceased was unmarried till her death. It is further submitted that despite presence of

suicide note, offence under Section 306 of IPC is not made out against the applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the materials available on record.

In the present case, there is specific allegation of commission of offence under Sections 306 and 506 of IPC against the present applicant. The

deceased has committed suicide and in the suicide note, she has disclosed the facts which are against the present applicant. Therefore, considering the

nature and gravity of offence along with facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant benefit of anticipatory bail to the

applicant. Hence, the application is rejected.