High CourtsSingle Bench

Rinku Kumari vs State Of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 3 April 2024 · Citation: (2024) 04 RAJ CK 0019

HON’BLE JUDGES
Kuldeep Mathur, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 306
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous Bail Application No. 2207 Of 2024
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

14 paragraphs · 646 words

Kuldeep Mathur, J

For the reasons indicated in the application seeking early hearing of the matter, the same is allowed.

At the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is heard and is being decided today itself.

This application for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the petitioner who have been arrested in connection with FIR No.91/2023 registered at Police Station Sadri, District Pali, for offence under Section 306/34 IPC.

Drawing attention of the Court towards the FIR, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as per prosecution, the deceased Lalaram committed suicide by hanging himself. Learned counsel submitted that a perusal of the FIR clearly indicates that the petitioner has not instigated or aided or abetted the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel submitted that since the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 IPC are not present in the instant case, the petitioner, who is in custody, deserves indulgence of bail.

Learned counsel relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Apex court in M. Arjuna vs. State, represented by its Inspector of Police, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 315, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:-

“The essential ingredients of the offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are: (i) the abetment, (ii) the intention of the accused to aid or instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide. The act of the accused, however, insulting the deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute the abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that the accused intended by such act to instigate the deceased to commit suicide. Unless the ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 I.P.C.”

Learned counsel further also relied upon the judgment rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of S.S. Cheena Vs. Vijay Kumar Mahajan & Anr. reported in (2010)12 SCC 190, wherein Hon’ble the Supreme Court while deciding a criminal appeal held that 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 accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.

Lastly, learned counsel submitted that the petitioner is in judicial custody and the trial of the case will take sufficiently long time, therefore, the benefit of bail should be granted to the accused-petitioner.

Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel representing the complainant vehemently opposed the bail application. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner, by his act, compelled the deceased to commit suicide and therefore, the petitioner does not deserve to be enlarged on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the complainant. Perused the material available on record.

Having considered the rival submissions, facts and circumstances of the case so also the fact that there is no evidence available on record showing that the petitioner is guilty of the act of instigating/aiding/abetting the deceased to commit suicide, without expressing any opinion on merits/demerits of the case, this Court is inclined to enlarge the petitioner on bail.

Accordingly, the bail application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed and it is ordered that the accused-petitioner- Rinku Kumari D/o Shri Dungaram W/o Prakash Kumar shall be enlarged on bail in connection with FIR No.91/2023 registered at Police Station Sadri, District Pali, provided she furnishes a personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the satisfaction of the learned trial Judge for her appearance before the court concerned on all the dates of hearing as and when called upon to do so.

It is however, made clear that findings recorded/observations made above are for limited purposes of adjudication of bail application. The trial court shall not get prejudiced by the same.