Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:78164 Court No. - 80 Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 445 of 2025 Appellant :- Ram Bharosey Lal Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Appellant :- Ardhendu Shekhar Sharma,Hari Shankar Tripathi,Ram Babu Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Tiwari Deva,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 Ram Bharosey Lal with the prayer to set aside the order dated 19.12.2024 passed by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Act, Bareilly and to release him on bail in Case Crime No. 794 of 2024, under Sections 108, 351(2) B.N.S. and Section 3(1)(da) and 3(2) (v) SC/ST Act, Police Station Izzat Nagar, District Bareilly. 2. Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 and perused the record. 3. The prosecution story, as disclosed in the F.I.R., is that Neeraj @ Balle, the deceased husband of the informant purchased a land from Rajveer and Kiran Verma about three years before which caused grudge to the neighbour Ram Bharose and his two sons Harish and Shyam. They used to make altercation with her husband and they were trying to grab the said house which caused harassment and annoyance to her husband. On 25.10.2024 at about 3.24 after noon, her husband went to show the said house to Asha worker for giving it on rent but while returning from the said house, named three accused persons caught him on the way and hurled abuses by caste related remarks and also threatened for life. Feeling very much harassed and frustrated her husband prepared a video in his mobile phone in the said house and committed suicide as compelled by the accused persons. Subsequently the informant came to know about the said facts when she saw the mobile phone of her husband. Rajveer, prior owner of the house was also not happy with him as he had sold the said house to a member of scheduled caste and scheduled tribe community. The F.I.R. was lodged on 27.10.2024 against the named accused persons Ram Bharose, Harish, Shyam and Rajveer and after investigation, charge sheet has been 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 F.I.R. of this case was lodged after two days of the occurrence without any plausible explanation of delay in lodging the F.I.R. It is next submitted that admittedly there is a civil suit pending with respect to the said house. It is further submitted that the police prepared the memo of recovery when search was made in the house/place of occurrence and one piece of rope, one bottle cover and five condoms were retrieved by the police from the said house. It is next submitted that CCTV footage of the spot was also taken into possession by the Investigating Officer which shows the entry and exit of the deceased on short intervals with a lady at the relevant time on 25.10.2024. The complete video reflects that the deceased was not stopped by any person in the way on that day. It is also submitted that in the circumstances of this case, it appears that the deceased had some relationship with the lady Asha worker and on fateful day when he came back from that house with the lady, he had some quarrel with his wife and that is why he committed suicide after again coming to the said house. It is also submitted that the deceased never made any complaint to any authority that he was being tortured by the accused persons including the appellant. It is next submitted that the alleged video prepared by the deceased himself is a concocted piece of evidence of the prosecution. It is also submitted that cause of death of the deceased is asphyxia due to ante-mortem hanging. The essential ingredients to constitute an offence under Section 306 I.P.C. are completely missing in this case. It is also submitted that criminal history of the appellant has been explained by way of IInd supplementary affidavit. The appellant is languishing in jail since 30.10.2024. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality warranting interference by this Court. 5. On the other hand, learned A.G.A. and leaned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 vehemently opposed the appeal and it has been submitted that video made by the deceased himself in the mobile phone clearly shows that he committed suicide on instigation and provocation of the appellant and other accused persons whereby it is explicitly clear that all the accused persons of this case are responsible for committing suicide by the deceased. It is also submitted that since the deceased was threatened by the appellant and other accused persons for his life and such incident occurred on the fateful day as well when he was on the way to his house, it is quite possible that the said incident was covered by CCTV footage. A certificate under Section 63(4) (c) Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (old Section 65B of Evidence Act) has been obtained by the Investigating Officer which has been submitted before this Court by way of compliance affidavit. It is also submitted that there was no possibility of false implication of the present appellant. It is next submitted that nothing objectionable material was found from the house where the occurrence took place by the police. It is also submitted that the informant Smt. Neetu wife of the deceased and other witnesses corroborated the prosecution story in their statements under Section 180 B.N.S.S. It is also submitted that due to harassment and provocation of the appellant and other accused persons, the deceased committed suicide. It is next submitted that the video prepared by the deceased himself is available on record as dying declaration. 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. In the facts and circumstances of the instant case, the law propounded in Gurcharan Singh (supra) and M. Arjunan (supra) prima facie stands in favour of the present appellant and at this stage, it is found that no prima facie offence was found by the Investigating Officer to show that the present accused appellant abetted the deceased to commit suicide. The elements of clear mens rea or direct act of abetment of the accused appellant that led the victim to commit suicide are missing in this case and since there is no live link between the accused appellant and commission of suicide, Section 306 I.P.C. would not be applicable in such condition. The CCTV footage as appears, as an electronic evidence has not been submitted according to relevant law/rules. 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of the offence, evidence, complicity of the accused, role of the appellant, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant has made out a case for bail. The Court concerned erred in rejecting the bail application of the appellant. The impugned order suffers from infirmity and illegality and the same is liable to be set-aside and the appeal is liable to be allowed. 11. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order rejecting the bail application of the appellant is, hereby, set-aside. 12. Let the appellant- Ram Bharosey Lal involved in the aforesaid case crime number 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. 13. 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 :- 13.5.2025 Rmk. Digitally signed by :- RAM MURTI KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad