Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51833 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 7486 of 2022 Appellant :- Shashidhar Dwivedi Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Indra Deo Mishra,Premshankar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Nalin Kumar Srivastava,J. 1. This criminal appeal under Section 14-A (2) Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act (hereinafter referred to as SC/ST Act) has been preferred by the appellant Shashidhar Dwivedi with the prayer to set aside the cognizance order dated 19.11.2005 including the charge sheet dated 22.01.2003 as well as entire proceedings of Case No. 6476 of 2005 (State Vs. Shashidhar Dwivedi), arising out of Case Crime No. 516 of 2002, under Section 306 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Farrukhabad, pending in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Farrukhabad. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the entire record. 3. The prosecution has come-forwarded with the case that on 02.10.2002 the informant Dataram, Senior Clerk, Juvenile Welfare Board, Fatehgarh had come in the office of Prabhat Mishra, District Savings Officer, Kannauj from where he was taken to the office of Shashidhar Dwivedi, Chief Development Officer, Kannauj by Prabhat Mishra where he was harassed and instigated by the present accused appellant and co-accused Prabhat Mishra. They created a lot of distress in the mind of the informant (deceased) and abetted him to commit suicide and ultimately he committed suicide by hanging. F.I.R. was lodged and after investigation charge sheet was submitted. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant is innocent, he has not committed the alleged offence but he has been falsely implicated in this case. Alleged offences are not attracted against him. It is further submitted that the police has miserably failed to show an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. and as a matter of fact, essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are completely missing in this case. It is next submitted that co-accused Prabhat Kumar Mishra filed Criminal Appeal (SLP) No. 9591 of 2022 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for quashing of the proceedings of Criminal Case No. 6476 of 2005 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court quashed the proceedings of the aforesaid case in respect of him. It is next submitted that at no point of time, the appellant instigated the victim to commit suicide. Although a suicide note was prepared by the deceased but the said suicide note does not reveal the fact that deceased committed suicide due to instigation of the appellant. The deceased was working as senior clerk in the office of Juvenile Welfare Board, Fatehgarh, Farrukhabad and he was never humiliated by the appellant. It is also submitted that the police investigated the matter and no evidence was collected at all and final report was submitted in this matter. However, after further investigation, charge sheet was submitted and no ingredient was found for instigation or abetment by the appellant to the deceased to commit suicide. It is further submitted that there is no reliable evidence on record that the deceased was ever humiliated by the appellant by virtue of caste. The ingredients of the SC/ST Act are not applicable in the instant matter. 5. On the other hand, learned AGA vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant but could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 6. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire record including the impugned order carefully. 7. In Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the basic ingredients of Section 306 IPC are suicidal death and abetment thereof. To constitute abetment, intention and involvement of accused to aid or instigate commission of suicide is imperative. Any severance or absence of any of these constituents would militate against said indictment. Remoteness of culpable acts or omissions rooted in intention of accused to actualise the suicide would fall short of offence of abetment essential to attract Section 306 IPC. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of indictable acts or omission are concomitant indices of abetment. Section 306 IPC thus criminalises sustained incitement for suicide. 8. In M. Arjunan v. State, (2019) 3 SCC 315 the Hon'ble Apex Court held that insulting deceased by using abusive language will not, by itself, constitute abetment of suicide. There should be evidence capable of suggesting that accused intended by such act(s) to instigate deceased to commit suicide. Unless ingredients of instigation/abetment to commit suicide are satisfied, accused cannot be convicted under Section 306 IPC. 9. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, severity of punishment, the Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The trial Court erred in rejecting the bail application. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is to be allowed. 10. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 11. Let the appellant- Shashidhar Dwivedi involved in Case No. 6476 of 2005 (State Vs. Shashidhar Dwivedi), arising out of Case Crime No. 516 of 2002, under Section 306 I.P.C. and 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Farrukhabad be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. (i) The appellant will not tamper with the evidence during the trial. (ii) The appellant will not pressurize/ intimidate the prosecution witness. (iii) The appellant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed, unless personal presence are exempted. (iv) The appellant shall not commit an offence similar to the offence of which he is accused, or suspected, of the commission of which he is suspected. (v) The appellant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, the prosecution shall be at liberty to move bail cancellation application before this Court. Order Date :- 9.4.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad