2025:UHC:3050 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE ASHISH NAITHANI FIRST BAIL APPLICATION NO. 1154 of 2024 Dhani Ram …Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand …Respondent Counsel for the Applicant : Mr. Siddharth Bankoti, learned counsel. Counsel for the State : Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, learned D.A.G. Hon’ble Ashish Naithani, J. This is an application under Section 439 CrPC, seeking regular bail by the applicant, Dhani Ram, who has been in judicial custody since 01.11.2020 in connection with Case Crime No. 45 of 2020, registered at Police Station Mallital, District Nainital, for the offence under Section 306 IPC. 2. As Per the FIR, one Rahul Kumar, the son of the complainant, allegedly committed suicide by hanging himself on 17.04.2020. 3. The FIR, however, was lodged nearly four months after the alleged incident, and not contemporaneously. The complainant explains this delay in the FIR itself, wherein the complainant contends that he waited for the DNA report, which eventually revealed that the deceased was not the biological father of the child born to Ms. Kavita. 1 2025:UHC:3050 4. It is alleged that Kavita and her family members, along with the present applicant and four other named co-accused, had exerted sustained pressure upon the deceased to marry Kavita, alleging him to be the father of her child. The complainant asserts that such psychological coercion led his son into a state of mental distress, ultimately resulting in his suicide. 5. During the course of investigation, the applicant and the co-accused were charge-sheeted under Section 306 IPC. The trial commenced thereafter, and eight prosecution witnesses have been examined till date. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the FIR suffers from significant and unexplained delay, having been lodged nearly four months after the incident. While the State attributes this to the pendency of the DNA report, it is pointed out that no steps were taken during this period to lodge even a preliminary report or complaint, which raises doubts about the spontaneity and credibility of the allegations. 7. It is further contended that the core allegation that the applicant pressurized the deceased to marry is neither supported by any documentary material nor backed by contemporaneous messages, threats, or acts of coercion that could satisfy the test of abetment in law. 8. It is emphasized that there is no suicide note, and the statements of witnesses do not reveal any direct or proximate act by the applicant that instigated or facilitated the deceased’s suicide. The applicant's 2 2025:UHC:3050 alleged role is indistinct from that of the co-accused — Rama Devi, Anand Ram, and Mohit Kumar — all of whom have been granted bail. The parity principle, it is submitted, is fully applicable in the present case, as the applicant is similarly placed and no distinguishing factor has been demonstrated. 9. The applicant has been in custody for more than three years and has no proven antecedents directly bearing on the present offence, is willing to abide by any condition imposed by the Court and undertakes not to misuse the liberty, if granted. 10. On the other hand, learned State Counsel submits that the applicant’s case is distinct from that of the co-accused. It is asserted that as per the DNA report, the applicant is the biological father of the child, and thus the role attributed to him is not merely peripheral but central to the alleged cause of suicide. It is also contended that the applicant has already been convicted and sentenced to 20 years’ imprisonment in a separate POCSO case, and his enlargement on bail in the present matter may result in a threat to the integrity of trial proceedings. 11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. 12. The foundational question before this Court is whether, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the continued incarceration of the applicant is warranted, particularly when the allegations pertain to psychological abetment to suicide an offence which by its very nature demands rigorous judicial scrutiny of mens rea, proximity, and the directness of the causal 3 2025:UHC:3050 link. 13. The Court notes at the outset that there is no suicide note left by the deceased. This assumes relevance because, in cases under Section 306 IPC, a suicide note while not indispensable often serves to establish the mental state of the deceased and the extent of alleged inducement or instigation by the accused. Its absence places the State’s case substantially on inferential footing. 14. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, (2017) 1 SCC 433, reiterated that the ingredients of abetment require a positive act of instigation or intentional aid. The Court held that mere harassment or discord, unless shown to have a proximate link with the act of suicide, would not satisfy the rigours of Section 306 IPC. 15. In the present case, while there is an allegation of pressure exerted upon the deceased to marry Kavita, the State fails to demonstrate that the alleged pressure was continuous, deliberate, or proximate in time so as to constitute a direct cause of the deceased’s suicide.The deceased had returned on bail on 29.02.2020, and the suicide occurred nearly six weeks later. The absence of intervening acts of provocation, communication, or confrontation significantly weakens the causal nexus. 16. Furthermore, the State itself relies heavily on the DNA report to distinguish the present applicant from the co-accused. However, the existence of a biological relationship with the child, even if established, does not by itself constitute a criminal 4 2025:UHC:3050 offence. It does not ipso facto render the applicant liable for abetment to suicide unless it is shown that he misused this position to harass or coerce the deceased. 17. It is also important to note that the trial has progressed substantially. Eight out of the total listed prosecution witnesses have been examined. The material part of the prosecution evidence, therefore, stands recorded. There is no allegation that the applicant has attempted to tamper with the evidence or to influence any of the witnesses during the period of custody extending over three years. 18. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Chandra v. CBI, (2012) 1 SCC 40, underscored the necessity of safeguarding personal liberty and warned against prolonged pre-trial incarceration. In Dataram Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 3 SCC 22, it was observed that “a person is believed to be innocent until found guilty” and bail should not be denied merely on the basis of apprehension unless grounded in credible material. 19. As regards the other case in which the applicant stands convicted under the POCSO Act, this Court is mindful of the seriousness of that conviction. However, the legal principle remains that each case must stand on its own footing. The fact of conviction in another matter, while relevant for general assessment, cannot be determinative unless it bears on the risk of flight, tampering, or repeat offence in the instant case 20. Unless there is a material suggestion that the applicant is likely to abscond or obstruct justice in the present case, denial of bail solely on the ground of another conviction may amount to overreach and 5 2025:UHC:3050 conflation of unrelated causes. ORDER Let the applicant, Dhani Ram, be released on bail, on furnishing a personal bond of ₹50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Court concerned.The applicant shall not tamper with the evidence, shall not attempt to influence any witness, and shall appear before the trial court on each date fixed. In case of breach of any of these conditions, the State shall be at liberty to move for cancellation of bail. Accordingly, the bail application stands allowed ___________________ ASHISH NAITHANI, J. Dt: 16.04.2025 SB 6 SHIKSHA BINJOLA Digitally signed by SHIKSHA BINJOLA DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=3410ef86ae41ec9fbabcd5dba6b3a2c24b5a a08b09c12f21822fbd40bf639b1c, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=FD80A2D028949381C52796A542D7F F0A9BED00E67B5283D205F18FE29BDF5DD9, cn=SHIKSHA BINJOLA Date: 2025.04.25 15:59:05 +05'30'