Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:5576 Court No. - 11 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 839 of 2025 Applicant :- Arti Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Govt. Lko. Counsel for Applicant :- Atul Verma,Ali Moid Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. 1. Heard Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri Arun Kumar Verma, learned A.G.A. for the State and Sri Anjani Kumar Dwivedi alongwith Sri Manish Kumar, learned Advocates, who have filed Vakalatnama on the behalf of the informant/ complainant. Said Vakalatnama is taken on record. 2. As per learned counsel for the applicant, the present applicant is in jail since 21.08.2024 in Case Crime No.167 of 2024, under Section 306 IPC, Police Station – Bazar Shukul, District – Amethi. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the present applicant has been falsely implicated in the case as she has not committed any offence as alleged. Attention has been drawn towards the impugned FIR, which shows that the alleged incident had taken place on 06.06.2024 but the FIR has been lodged on 22.06.2024 without explaining the aforesaid delay. In the FIR, the allegation has been levelled against two accused persons, one is present applicant and another is Sumit with whom the present applicant was allegedly in relation. 4. Further submission is that co-accused Sumit Kumar has been granted interim anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 16.12.2024 passed by this Court in Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application U/S 438 Cr.P.C. No.2751 of 2024, which is pending. 5. As per allegation of the FIR, the present applicant was in illicit relation with co-accused Sumit Kumar despite the fact that she was married lady having three children. The deceased, who was husband of the applicant, was so much fed up for the aforesaid conduct of his wife and both used to fight time and again on this issue. 6. As per learned counsels for the informant, before the deceased committed suicide, when both were fighting, the present applicant told her husband to go and die and feeling offended from her statement, he committed suicide as that statement has been enclosed with this bail application. 7. Sri Atul Verma, learned counsel for the applicant has cited the recent judgment of the Apex Court in re; Mahendra Awase Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal Appeal No.221 of 2025, dated 17.01.2025 as well as other judgments of the Apex Court in re; Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar Vs. State of M.P., (2002) 5 SCC 371, and Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Government of NCT of Delhi), (2009) 16 SCC 605, whereby the Apex Court has held that so as to constitute the offence under Section 306 IPC, there must be an overt and positive act of the accused person instigating or abetting the victim to commit suicide. There must be proximity of the act of the accused with the consequential act of the victim. The Apex Court has also observed that if any of the spouses commits suicide on account of some dispute between husband and wife, that conduct of the accused may not come within the purview of Section 306 IPC. However, the aforesaid aspect may be tested during the course of the trial. 8. Sri Atul Verma as well as learned counsels for the opposite parties have not disputed on the point that the facts and circumstances pursuant to which the FIR under Section 306 IPC has been lodged and charge sheet has been filed may be tested during the course of the trial. 9. The present applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C. (480 of BNSS). She is having no prior criminal history of any kind whatsoever. She undertakes that if she is granted bail, she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and shall abide by all terms and conditions of the bail order. 10. Learned counsels for the informant/ complainant as well as learned AGA have again opposed the prayer for bail and have submitted that under compelling circumstances and having no other option except to commit suicide, the victim committed suicide, therefore, this is a case where ingredients of Section 306 IPC are attracted. 11. Without entering into merits of the issue; considering the arguments of learned counsel for the parties; contents and allegations of the FIR; the fact that this is a case of abetment of suicide but prima facie, it appears that there is no overt act on the part of the applicant to instigate or abet the deceased to commit suicide so ingredients of Section 306 IPC are not attracted in the present case, however, this aspect may be tested during the course of the trial; there is six days' unexplained delay in lodging the FIR; the applicant being lady may be given the benefit of Section 437 Cr.P.C.; undertaking of the applicant that she shall cooperate in the trial proceedings and shall not misuse the liberty of bail and also considering the dictum of the Apex Court in re; Mahendra Awase (supra), Sanju alias Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra) and Chitresh Kumar Chopra (supra), I find it appropriate to release the applicant on bail. 12. Accordingly, the bail application is allowed. 13. Let applicant- Arti be released on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on her furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:- (i) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that she shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence when the witnesses are present in court. In case of default of this condition, it shall be open for the trial court to treat it as abuse of liberty of bail and pass orders in accordance with law. (ii) The applicant shall remain present before the trial court on each date fixed, either personally or through her counsel. In case of her absence, without sufficient cause, the trial court may proceed against her under Section 229-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iii) In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and in order to secure her presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fails to appear before the court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against her, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code. (iv) The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the trial court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court absence of the applicant is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against her in accordance with law. (v). The applicant 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. (vi) The applicant shall not leave India without previous permission of the court. [Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J.] Order Date :- 28.1.2025 RBS/- Digitally signed by :- RAM BIR SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench