Samarth Shrivastava and Others vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—Heard.

The applicants have filed this application u/s 438 of the Cr. P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail.

Case diary of Crime No. 94/2005, registered at Police Station, Modahapara, District Raipur for the offence punishable u/s 306 of the IPC perused.

The facts of the case are that the deceased namely-Abhinav Shrivastava was married to one of the accused-Suit. Sarjana Shrivastava in the year 2001. Out of their wedlock, they had a 2 years old girl. The deceased committed suicide on 8.6.2005 in Raipur by jumping from Farishta Complex, Raipur. He left a suicidal note dated 8.6.2005, filed as page No. 25 along with the objection filed by the Objector. It has been mentioned in the suicidal note that since the wife has lodged a report u/s 498A of the IPC and she is pressuring the deceased to give her divorce, he has committed suicide. In the last 4 lines of the suicidal note, he has mentioned that the persons namely, Smt. Sarjana Shrivastava, Sangharsh Shrivastava, Samarth Shrivastava (real brother-in-laws), and Shailendra Saxena (brother-in-law/Mousera Sala) and the father-in-law of Sangharsh namely-B.B.L. Shrivastava are responsible for this step taken by him.

Learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the case u/s 498A was pending against the deceased in which he was arrested and was released on bail by the Court and the relationship between husband and wife was not cordial. She also submits that the deceased committed suicide on his own act and none-else except the deceased should be held responsible for the same. The further submission is that on the basis of allegations made by the prosecution, no act of abetment can be attributed to the applicants, therefore, no offence u/s 306 of the IPC would be made out against them. The further submission is that the wife Smt. Sarjana Shrivastava, one of the co-accused, has already been released on anticipatory bail vide order dated 1.9.2005 passed in M. Cr. C. No. 1378/2005, therefore, this application tiled by the present applicants may also be allowed.

On the other hand, learned State Counsel opposes the bail application. He submits that the acts attributed to the applicants amount to abetment and prima facie an offence u/s 306 of the IPC is made out.

Learned Counsel for the Objector vehemently opposes this bail application and submits that after the marriage, the deceased was treated with cruelty by his wife as well as by the family members of the wife and as a result of mental torture, he committed suicide on the said date.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the bail petition.

Section 306 of the IPC reads as under:

Abetment of suicide.-If any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years, and shall also be liable to fine.

The word abetment has been defined u/s 107 of IPC in Chapter V, which reads as under:

Abetment of a thing.-A person abets the doing of a thing, who-First-Instigates any person to do that thing; or

Secondly-Engages with one or more other person or persons in any conspiracy for the doing of that thing, if an act of illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy, and in order to the doing of that thing; or

Thirdly-Intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.

Explanation.-A person who. by wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful concealment of a material fact which he is bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or procures, or attempt to cause of procure, a thing to be done, is said to instigate the doing of that thing.

After bare perusal of these 2 provisions, it would appear that in the broader sense, a person may be said to have abetted to commit suicide if he or she has either instigated or "cooperated" or has added certain "initial assistance" to the deceased to commit would be suicide by him. Unless there is some evidence of "instigation", "cooperation" or "initial assistance" on the part of the person alleged to have abetted the deceased, prima facie, it cannot be said that he/she has committed an offence of abetment.

The instigation, cooperation or initial assistance may be in either of the forms described under any of the provisions contained in Section 107 of the IPC in form first, second or in the third form along with the Explanation appended to it.

If we look into the materials collected by the prosecution and particularly the suicidal note, referred to by learned Counsel for the Objector, it would appear that these ingredients, which are required for prima facie satisfying the test of abetment are hardly available in this case. The suicidal note, may explain the mental state of the deceased or the hardships/difficulties faced by him during the past but, it cannot be said that its contents also prima facie satisfy the ingredients of abetment as is envisaged in Section 107 of the IPC.

In the facts and circumstances of the case and in light of the evidence collected by the prosecution so far and further in light of the fact that the wife, on whose instance, the case u/s 498A was registered and the allegations that she was pressing hard for divorce, has been granted anticipatory bail by this Court, I am of the opinion that present is a fit case in which the applicants should be given the benefit of Section 438 of the Cr. P.C.

In the result, the petition is allowed. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the applicants shall be released on bail on each of them furnishing a personal bond in sum of Rs. 10,000 with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the officer arresting them.

Applying the principles laid down in the matter of Salauddin Abdulsamad Shaikh Vs. State of Maharashtra, , hereby direct that this order of bail in form of protective umbrella shall remain in force for a period of 6 weeks from today during which the applicants may apply for regular bail before the concerned Court u/s 439 of the Cr.P.C.

Certified copy as per rules.