# Mohan Shyam (In Jail) v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 2 ILRA 900
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-01-19
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46273 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rahul Chaturvedi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/mohan-shyam-in-jail-v-state-of-u-p-46839
- **Pages:** 10

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code -
Sections 107, 147, 307, 504, 506, 306 -
Application for bail - The moot pertinent
question of law is as to whether any
conduct of the applicant would fall within
the ambit of Section 107/306, I.P.C.? (Para
14)

Words
and
Phrases
-
'instigate',
'instigation' - The word instigate literally
means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite,
encourage to do an act. A person is said to
instigate another person, when he actively
suggests or stimulates him to do an act by
means of language, direct or indirect or whether
it takes the form of expression, solicitation or of
hints
of
incitement
or
encouragement.
Instigation may be in expression, word or may
be simply by conduct of a person creating such
a situation exploiting his position, that the other
person have no other option but to take the
extreme step. Such a person would be liable for
abetment. (Para 15)

Where the accused had, by his acts or omission
or by a continued course of conduct, created
such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide,
in which case, an "instigation" may have to be
inferred. (Para 17)

Before holding an accused guilty of an
offence u/s 306 I.P.C., the court must
scrupulously
examine
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case. It is to be borne
in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused
which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306,
I.P.C. is not sustainable. (Para 18)

In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 of I.P.C. there
must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the
person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played
an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing
certain
act
to
facilitate
the
commission of suicide. (Para 18)

It has been contended that the applicant is
completely innocent and at best he could be
liable for not rendering desired assistance to the
informant Jagdish (deceased's son) in pacifying
the situation. The harassment part is attributed
to other co-accused persons (Bablu, Satyapal
and one Shamma). If assuming for the sake of
argument
that
the
dying-declaration
is
2 All. Mohan Shyam Vs. State of U.P.
901
authentic6, even then the case would not fall
within the ambit of Section 306, I.P.C. (Para 13)

B. Constitution of India: Article 21 -
While it is true that Article 21 is of great
importance
because
it
enshrines
the
fundamental right to individual liberty, but at
the same time a balance has to be struck
between the right to individual liberty and the
interest of society. No right can be absolute,
and reasonable restrictions can be placed on
them. While it is true that one of the
considerations in deciding whether to grant
bail to an accused or not is whether he has
been in jail for a long time, the court has also
to take into consideration other facts and
circumstances, such as the interest of the
society. (Para 30, 35)

No doubt there are 16 cases to the credit of
the applicant but fact remains that, in most of
them the police has either submitted the
closure report, which has been accepted by
the court or rest of them are State sponsored.
(Para 28, 31)

C. It is settled principle of law that the
principles of parity do not apply in
rejection. Therefore, if the bail applications
of co-accused persons have been rejected
then it cannot be said that the applicant too
deserves the same treatment. The applicant is
in jail since 30.10.2019 and there is no
possibility of early conclusion of trial in near
future and prima facie it seems that none of
the conduct of the applicant would attract any
of the provisions of S. 107 of I.P.C. (if taken
the dying-declarat

## Text

900 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
dead body was found near the dwelling
house of the accused.

52. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. The accused-appellant is
sentenced to undergo 10 years rigorous
imprisonment. If 10 years of incarceration is
over, he shall be released forthwith, if not
required in any other case. The fine and
default sentence is maintained. The default
sentence to run after 10 years of incarceration
is over. The judgment and order impugned in
this appeal is modified to the aforesaid extent.
Let a copy of this judgment along with the
trial court record be sent to the Court and Jail
Authorities concerned for compliance.
----------
(2021)02ILR A900
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.01.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAHUL CHATURVEDI, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 46273 of
2020

Mohan Shyam ...Applicant(In Jail)
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Pankaj Kumar Shukla

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
A.G.A., Sri Sandeep Kumar, Sri Amit Daga

A. Criminal Law -Indian Penal Code -
Sections 107, 147, 307, 504, 506, 306 -
Application for bail - The moot pertinent
question of law is as to whether any
conduct of the applicant would fall within
the ambit of Section 107/306, I.P.C.? (Para
14)

Words
and
Phrases
-
'instigate',
'instigation' - The word instigate literally
means to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite,
encourage to do an act. A person is said to
instigate another person, when he actively
suggests or stimulates him to do an act by
means of language, direct or indirect or whether
it takes the form of expression, solicitation or of
hints
of
incitement
or
encouragement.
Instigation may be in expression, word or may
be simply by conduct of a person creating such
a situation exploiting his position, that the other
person have no other option but to take the
extreme step. Such a person would be liable for
abetment. (Para 15)

Where the accused had, by his acts or omission
or by a continued course of conduct, created
such circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit suicide,
in which case, an "instigation" may have to be
inferred. (Para 17)

Before holding an accused guilty of an
offence u/s 306 I.P.C., the court must
scrupulously
examine
the
facts
and
circumstances of the case. It is to be borne
in mind that in cases of alleged abetment of
suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect
acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.
Merely on the allegation of harassment without
there being any positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the accused
which led or compelled the person to commit
suicide, conviction in terms of Section 306,
I.P.C. is not sustainable. (Para 18)

In order to bring a case within the
purview of Section 306 of I.P.C. there
must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the
person who is said to have abetted the
commission of suicide must have played
an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing
certain
act
to
facilitate
the
commission of suicide. (Para 18)

It has been contended that the applicant is
completely innocent and at best he could be
liable for not rendering desired assistance to the
informant Jagdish (deceased's son) in pacifying
the situation. The harassment part is attributed
to other co-accused persons (Bablu, Satyapal
and one Shamma). If assuming for the sake of
argument
that
the
dying-declaration
is
2 All. Mohan Shyam Vs. State of U.P.
901
authentic6, even then the case would not fall
within the ambit of Section 306, I.P.C. (Para 13)

B. Constitution of India: Article 21 -
While it is true that Article 21 is of great
importance
because
it
enshrines
the
fundamental right to individual liberty, but at
the same time a balance has to be struck
between the right to individual liberty and the
interest of society. No right can be absolute,
and reasonable restrictions can be placed on
them. While it is true that one of the
considerations in deciding whether to grant
bail to an accused or not is whether he has
been in jail for a long time, the court has also
to take into consideration other facts and
circumstances, such as the interest of the
society. (Para 30, 35)

No doubt there are 16 cases to the credit of
the applicant but fact remains that, in most of
them the police has either submitted the
closure report, which has been accepted by
the court or rest of them are State sponsored.
(Para 28, 31)

C. It is settled principle of law that the
principles of parity do not apply in
rejection. Therefore, if the bail applications
of co-accused persons have been rejected
then it cannot be said that the applicant too
deserves the same treatment. The applicant is
in jail since 30.10.2019 and there is no
possibility of early conclusion of trial in near
future and prima facie it seems that none of
the conduct of the applicant would attract any
of the provisions of S. 107 of I.P.C. (if taken
the dying-declaration of Jogendra Singh to be
true for the sake of argument). It also seems
that it is the handiwork of police personnel
who used the deceased's son Jagdish as a
tool to falsely implicate all his opponents.
(Para 32, 33)

Application for bail allowed. (E-3)

Precedent followed:

1. Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State (Gov. of NCT
of Delhi), (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367 (Para 17)

2. Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs St. of W.B.,
(2010) 1 SCC 707 (Para 18)
3. Ramesh Kumar Vs St.of Chh., (2001) 9 SCC
618 (Para 19)

4. St. of W.B. Vs Orilal Jaiswal, (1994) 1 SCC 73
(Para 20)

5. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs St. of Mah. &
ors., decided on 27.11.2020, Crl. Misc. Criminal
Appeal No. 742 of 2020 (Para 22)

6. Neeru Yadav Vs St.of U.P. & anr., decided on
29.09.2015, Criminal Appeal No. 1272 of 2015
(Para 29)

7. Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs CBI, (2007) 1 SCC
(Cri) 254 (Para 30)

8. Ash Mohammad Vs Shiv Raj Singh, (2012) 9
SCC 446 (Para 30)

9. Dataram Singh Vs State of U.P. and another,
(2018) 3 SCC 22 (Para 35)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rahul Chaturvedi, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed on
behalf of applicant, taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Amit
Daga, Advocate assisted by Shri Sandeep
Kumar, learned counsel for the informant
and learned A.G.A. Perused the record.

3. By means of the present bail
application the applicant, who is facing
prosecution in connection with Case Crime
No.179 of 2019, u/s 147, 307, 504, 506,
306 I.P.C., P.S.-Surir, District-Mathura, is
seeking his enlargement on bail during
trial. The applicant is an elderly person of
75 years and is in jail since 03.10.2019.

4. Text of the F.I.R. is that on
23.8.2019 at 15.30 hours all the named
accused i.e. Satyapal, Bablu, Than Singh,
Shibbo and the applicant Mohan Shyam
armed with lathi, danda and sariya intruded
902 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the house of the complainant and inflicted
serious injuries on the parent of the
complainant i.e. Smt. Chandrawati and
Jogendra, with the intention to grab the
house, of which a written report was made
but the FIR could not be registered under
the clout of the applicant who happens to
be a muscleman and a man of chequered
history. Taking advantage of the situation,
the applicant and other named accused
persons used to regularly visit the parent of
the complainant and threaten them with
dire consequences. Somehow the persons
in duress mustered enough courage to get
the FIR registered at Police Station Surir,
but their misfortune followed them as the
applicant along with the accomplices
caught hold of them near the police station,
set them ablaze after sprinkling some oily
material and took to their heels. The illfated old burning couple managed to rush
in the police station premises itself.
Experiencing heat of the hours, the police
personnel got them admitted in the hospital.
On 30.8.2019 the FIR in this regard was
got registered by one Jagdish at Police
Station Surir, District Mathura.

5. Injured Jogendra, on 31.8.2019
after getting recorded his dying-declaration,
flat lined his breath at Safdarganj Hospital,
Delhi on 01.9.2019 at 7.50 A.M. The cause
of death is shown to be septic shock as he
sustained 75% deep thermal burn over his
body.
The
dying-declaration
of
the
deceased is annexed as Annexure-4 to the
petition.

6. At this juncture, learned counsel for
the applicant requested the Court that
before evaluating the text of the F.I.R.
(Case Crime No.179 of 2019) and dyingdeclaration
of
the
deceased
dated
31.8.2019, the incident prior to the instant
one, must also be taken into account as the
same have a vital and pivotal role in
adjudicating the present bail application.

7. It has been further submitted by
learned counsel for the applicant that the
applicant, aged about 75 years has been
implicated due to perfunctory handiwork of
the police, just to save the skin of some
erring police personnel, who if at all taken
timely action with alacrity against the
offenders then this early incident might not
have
occurred.
While
pleading
the
innocence of the present octogenarian
applicant, the counsel uttered an old saying
"All are not thieves that the dogs bark at".
It has been strenuously contended by
learned counsel for the applicant that the
present F.I.R. is a typically handiwork and
a typical modus operandi of the local police
to save themselves from the clutches of
departmental
inquiry
and
consequent
actions.

8. Learned counsel for the applicant
has drawn attention of the Court to
Annexure-2 to the petition i.e. the F.I.R.
No.173 of 2019, u/s 452, 354, 323, 324
I.P.C., referring the date of incident
23.8.2019, of which the F.I.R. was got
lodged on 28.8.2019 at 12.21 hours by
Jogendra Singh, when he was alive, against
only one accused Satyapal s/o Than Singh,
with specific allegation that on 23.8.2019
the
named
accused,
in
intoxicated
condition, intruded his house and started
misbehaving with his wife Chandrawati
and on resistance by the wife, he
committed marpeet and hit iron rod (sariya)
blow over her head. Soon thereafter, the
informant along with his wife, rushed to the
police station. Upon the Majrubi Chitthi of
the police the injured Chandrawati was
examined by the concerned Medical
Officer, on the same day i.e. 23.8.2019 at
4.10 P.M. The M.L.C. Report , annexed as
2 All. Mohan Shyam Vs. State of U.P.
903
Annexure-1, categorically establishes that
the injured Chandrawati sustained one
lacerated wound of 1 cm x 1 cm over right
side of frontal region of her skull and
another injury is of almost same dimension
over the left side of frontal region of her
scull. The fresh bleeding was present,
though both the injuries were said to be
simple in nature. But when Jogendra Singh
(since deceased) tried to lodge an F.I.R.
against Satyapal, the police personnel
instead lodging the F.I.R., misbehaved,
humiliated and ousted him from the police
station. On this, it has been argued by
learned counsel for the applicant that a
ruthless and insensitive approach has been
adopted by the police personnel. If the
police at the point of time had taken action
against erring offenders, this unfortunate
incident
would
not
have
happened.
Disgusted and disgruntled by the action on
the part of police, the couple namely
Jogendra and Chandrawati, as a mark of
protest, self immolated themselves by
pouring kerosene oil all over them and
setting themselves ablaze, right in front of
Police Station Surir, District-Mathura on
28.8.2019. This unfortunate incident caused
upheaval and turmoil in the area as well as
local media. The son of Jogendra prepared
video of this incident and made it viral and
its audio has been made part of the Case
Diary.

9. After the incident, the police sprang
into action and one Shri Vijay Singh
Chauhan, C.O. Math, P.S.-Surir, DistrictMathura himself has registered yet another
F.I.R. as Case Crime No.174 of 2019 on
the same day i.e. 28.8.2019 at 20.44 hours
against erring police officials namely
Anoop Saroj, Deepak Nagar and Sunil
Kumar
with
specific
allegation
that
Jogendra Singh, the deceased, has given a
written application referring the incident
dated 23.8.2019 against Satyapal s/o Than
Singh, informing the police about the
alleged misbehaviour and assault with his
wife but the police personnel refused to
oblige him by not lodging the F.I.R. in this
regard and thus, the aforesaid F.I.R. was
got
registered
against
erring
police
personnel u/s 166A (c) of I.P.C.

10. Shri Pankaj Kumar Shukla,
learned counsel for the applicant has tried
to raise his castle of the argument by
referring aforesaid two F.I.Rs., which were
lodged one after the other on 28.8.2019
itself only after the incident of self
immolation by Jogendra Singh and his wife
before the police station. On this learned
counsel for the applicant submitted that if
the Court evaluates the date and time of the
F.I.R. No.179, it refers to 28.8.2019 at 8.00
in the morning, which is self in conformity
with
aforementioned
facts
and
circumstances.

11. It has been further submitted by
learned counsel for the applicant that after
the incident the local police caught hold the
son of the deceased namely Jagdish,
adopting a typical policia might, after the
said demise of Jogendra Singh, succeeded
in lodging the F.I.R. by painting canvass of
the story in contrast shades and colours,
against Satyapal, Bablu, Than Singh,
Mohan Shyam (applicant) and Shibbo,
mentioning the prosecution story, which is
already mentioned above.

12. It has been next contended by
learned counsel for the applicant that there
are plethora of witnesses who have testified
that being disgusted by the police inaction,
the
couple
under
protest
immolated
themselves. The C.O. too has admitted that
the deceased Jogendra immolated himself
in front of police station and thus it has
904 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
been contended by the counsel that the
applicant has been implicated by the police
using his son Jagish as a tool, in order to
save the culprits of Case Crime No.174 of
2019. Applicant's counsel has sarcastically
submitted that the death of Jogendra and
his wife came to the police as the "blessing
in disguise" to save erring police personnel
and to rope in the innocent people in this
offence. In such a case, there seems that the
sport of the police is the death of the
evidence.

13. Learned counsel for the applicant
has drawn attention of the Court to the
dying-declaration of the deceased dated
31.8.2019 allegedly recorded when he was
undergoing
treatment
at
Safdarganj
Hospital, Delhi. He has seriously disputed
the authenticity of this dying-declaration
and has submitted that even assuming for
the sake of argument to be correct, even
then from the said dying-declaration it is
clearly emerging that co-accused Bablu s/o
Viri Singh, who could be said to be
beneficiary of alleged deal. From the
alleged dying-declaration it is clear that the
informant Jagdish came to the applicant,
who happens to be Pradhan of the village,
for addressing some grievance but instead
addressing the grievance he extended threat
to him and persuaded him to surrender his
land. The harassment part is attributed to
Bablu, Satyapal and one Shamma. In the
last few lines of the said dying-declaration
a tangent remark has been made that "in
front of the police station, the applicant
dragged his wife by her heir and started
hurling abuses" and out of sheer frustration
he has committed suicide by pouring
kerosene over him and his wife and set
themselves afire. On this it has been
contended by learned counsel for the
applicant that the applicant is completely
innocent and at best he could be liable for
not rendering desired assistance to the
informant
Jagdish
in
pacifying
the
situation. The applicant in no way could be
said to be a beneficiary of alleged land,
claimed by the co-accused Bablu and the
applicant is a rank outsider to this deal and
he has hurled abuses. Learned counsel for
the applicant has seriously questioned the
genuineness of aforesaid dying-declaration
but as mentioned above, if assuming for the
sake of argument that this is an authentic
dying-declaration, even then the case
would not fall within the ambit of Section
306 I.P.C.

14.

After
hearing
the
rival
submissions by the learned counsels, lets
decide the moot pertinent question of law
as to whether any conduct of the applicant
would fall within the ambit of Section
107/306 IPC? Lets spell out the bare
provisions of above-mentioned sections
and related citations of Hon'ble the Apex
Court in this regard. They are :-

Section 306 IPC provides the
punishment for abetment of suicide, which
reads thus :-

"Section
306-
Abetment
of
suicide.- If any person commit suicide,
whoever abets the commission of such
suicide,
shall
be
punished
with
imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extended to ten years, and
shall also be liable to file."

Section 107 of the IPC defines
abetment, which reads thus:-

"Section 107- Abetment of a
thing.- A person abets the doing of a thing,
who--(Firstly)-- 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
2 All. Mohan Shyam Vs. State of U.P.
905
act or 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."

15. The word instigate literally means
to goad, urge, forward, provoke, incite,
encourage to do an act. A person is said to
instigate another person, when he actively
suggests or stimulates him to do an act by
means of language, direct or indirect or
whether it takes the form of expression,
solicitation or of hints of incitement or
encouragement. Instigation may be in
expression, word or may be simply by
conduct of a person creating such a
situation exploiting his position, that the
other person have no other option but to
take the extreme step. Such a person would
be liable for abetment.

16. On this, learned counsel for the
applicant has drawn the attention of the
Court to the various legal pronouncement
of Hon'ble Apex Court in this regard i.e.
abetment.

17. In the case of Chitresh Kumar
Chopra vs. State (Gov. of NCT of Delhi)
reported in (2010) 3 SCC (Crl.) 367, the
relevant extract of paragraph 14 of the
judgement quoted hereinbelow :-

"Speaking for the three-Judge
Bench, R.C. Lahoti, J. (as His Lordship
then was) said that instigation is to goad,
urge forward, provoke, incite or encourage
to do "an act". To satisfy the requirement of
"instigation", though it is not necessary
that actual words must be used to that
effect or what constitutes "instigation" must
necessarily and specifically be suggestive
of the consequence. Yet a reasonable
certainty to incite the consequence must
spelt out. Where the accused had, by his
acts or omission or by a continued course
of conduct, created such circumstances
that the deceased was left with no other
option except to commit suicide, in which
case, an "instigation" may have to be
inferred. A word uttered in a fit of anger or
emotion
without
intending
the
consequences to actually follow, cannot be
said to be instigation."

18. There is yet another judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Amalendu Pal alias Jhantu Vs. State of
West Bengal reported in (2010) 1 SCC
707. Paragraph 12 and 13 of the judgement
is quoted herein below:-

"12. Thus,
this Court has
consistently taken the view that before
holding an accused guilty of an offence
under Section 306 IPC, the Court must
scrupulously examine the facts and
circumstances of the case and also assess
the evidence adduced before it in order to
find
out
whether
the
cruelty
and
harassment meted out to the victim had
left the victim with no other alternative but
to put an end to her life. It is also to be
borne in mind that in cases of alleged
abetment of suicide there must be proof of
direct or indirect acts of incitement to the
commission of suicide. Merely on the
allegation of harassment without their
being any positive action proximate to the
time of occurrence on the part of the
accused which led or compelled the person
to commit suicide, conviction in terms of
Section 306 IPC is not sustainable.

13. In order to bring a case
within the purview of Section 306 of IPC
there must be a case of suicide and in the
commission of the said offence, the person
who
is
said
to
have
abetted
the
906 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
commission of suicide must have played
an active role by an act of instigation or by
doing
certain
act
to
facilitate
the
commission of suicide. Therefore, the act
of abetment by the person charged with the
said
offence
must
be
proved
and
established by the prosecution before he
could be convicted under Section 306 IPC."

19. The pioneer judgement in this
regard of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of
Ramesh Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
reported in (2001) 9 SCC 618. For ready
reference, the relevant extract of the
judgement is quoted herein below:-

"20. Instigation is to goad,
urge
forward,
provoke,
incite
or
encourage to do "an act". To satisfy the
requirement of instigation though it is
not necessary that actual words must be
used to that effect or what constitutes
instigation
must
necessarily
and
specifically
be
suggestive
of
the
consequence. Yet a reasonable certainty
to incite the consequence must be
capable of being spelt out. The present
one is not a case where the accused had
by his acts or omission or by a continued
course
of
conduct
created
such
circumstances that the deceased was left
with no other option except to commit
suicide in which case an instigation may
have been inferred. A word uttered in the
fit of anger or emotion without intending
the consequences to actually follow
cannot be said to be instigation."

20. There is yet another judgement of
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of
West Bengal Vs. Orilal Jaiswal reported in
(1994) 1 SCC 73. For ready reference the
relevant extract of the judgement is quoted
herein below:-

"This Court has cautioned that
the court should be extremely careful in
assessing the facts and circumstances of
each case and the evidence adduced in the
trial for the purpose of finding whether
the cruelty meted out to the victim had in
fact induced her to end the life by
committing suicide. If it transpires to the
court that a victim committing suicide was
hypersensitive
to
ordinary
petulance
discord and differences in domestic life
quite common to the society to which the
victim belonged and such petulance
discord and differences were not expected
to induce a similarly circumstanced
individual in a given society to commit
suicide, the conscience of the Court
should not be satisfied for basing a
finding that the accused charged of
abetting the offence of suicide should be
found guilty."

21. In the case of Ramesh Kumar Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh (supra) Hon'ble
Apex Court again observed in paragraph 20
of the judgement which is quoted herein
below:-

"20.... The question as to what
this the cause of a suicide has no easy
answers because suicidal ideation and
behavious in human beings are complex
and multifaceted. Different indivicuals in
the same situation react and behave
differently because of the personal meaing
they add to each event, thus accounting
for individual vulnerability to suicide.
Each individual's suicidability pattern
depends on his inner subjective experience
of mental pain, fear and loss of selfrespect. Each of these factors are crucial
and
exacerbating
contributor
to an
individual's vulnerability to end his own
life, which may either be an attempt for
2 All. Mohan Shyam Vs. State of U.P.
907
self protection or an escapism from
intolerable self."

22. In the latest judgement of Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Arnab
Manoranjan
Goswami
Vs.
State
of
Maharashtra
&
Others
decided
on
27.11.2020 in Crl. Misc. Criminal Appeal
No. 742 of 2020. Paragraph 57 of the
judgement is quoted herein below:-

"The Hon'ble Apex Court has
provided
the
guidelines
that
while
considering the application for grant of
bail under Article 226 in a suitable cases,
the High Court must considered the
settled factors, which emerges from the
precedents of this Court. These factors
can be summarized as follows:-

(i) The nature of the alleged
offence, the nature of the accusation and
the severity of the punishment in the case
of a conviction;

(ii) Whether there exists a
reasonable apprehension of the accused
tampering with the witnesses or being a
threat to the complainant or the witnesses;

(iii) The possibility of securing
the presence of the accused at the trial or
the likelihood of the accused fleeing from
justice;

(iv) The antecedents of and
circumstances which are peculiar to the
accused;

(v) Whether prima facie the
ingredients of the offence are made out,
on the basis of the allegations as they
stand, in the FIR; and

(vi) The significant interests of
the public or the State and other similar
considerations."

23. At this juncture, Shri Amit Daga,
learned counsel for the complainant has
raised his arguments in two folds;

24. Firstly, that the applicant being a
Pradhan of village was not honest in his
dealing and he was constantly taking the
side of offenders. It is alleged that the
applicant is having his hands in glove with
the named accused persons and out of sheer
frustration the couple have set themselves
ablaze and;

25. Secondly, that the applicant is a
political influential person having political
inclination, affiliation and the fact that
enjoys a long criminal history of 16 cases,
description of which has been given in
Annexure-8 to the petition.

26. I have perused the criminal
history of the applicant and its final
outcome. Out of 16 cases, in most of them,
either final reports have been submitted and
the same were accepted by the court or
expunged by the court itself. There are
three cases in which he has been acquitted.

27. On this, it has been submitted by
learned counsel for the complainant that
being a local politician (Pradhan), pasting
such type of frivolous criminal cases i.e.
FIRs, NCRs is rampant in the State
especially against persons who are holding
public office and that is why the police has
submitted either final report or expunged
the applicant from those cases and satisfied
by the explanation given by learned
counsel for the applicant in a form of
annexed chart.

28. No doubt the criminal antecedents
of an accused carries weight in invoking
the discretionary power of the Court while
granting bail, but in the present scenario
where in most of the cases the police itself
has submitted final report and accepted by
the court and few cases are State sponsored
under the Gunda Act and u/s 110(g) of
908 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Cr.P.C. On this basis a person cannot be
put behind the bars for ever.

29. But nonetheless the Hon'ble Apex
Court while deciding the case of Neeru
Yadav vs State of U.P. and another in
Criminal Appeal No.1272 of 2015 on
29.9.2015, has referred a few significant lines
from Benjamin Disraeli, as follows :

"I repeat that all power is a
trust-that we are accountable for its
exercise -that, from the people and for
the people, all springs, and all must exist.

That
apart,
it
has
to
be
remembered that justice in its conceptual
eventuality
and
connotative
expanse
engulfs the magnanimity of the sun, the
sternness of mountain, the complexity of
creation, the simplicity and humility of a
saint and the austerity of a Spartan, but it
always remains wedded to rule of law
absolutely
unshaken,
unterrified,
unperturbed and loyal."

30. In yet another judgment of
Rajesh Ranjan Yadav v. CBI, (2007) 1
SCC
(Cri)
254
and
also
in
Ash
Mohammad v. Shiv Raj Singh (2012) 9
SCC 446, the Hon'ble Apex Court lucidly
explained the powers of the Court while
considering bail application as "we are of
the opinion that while it is true that
Article 21 is of great importance because
it enshrines the fundamental right to
individual liberty, but at the same time a
balance has to be struck between the right
to individual liberty and the interest of
society. No right can be absolute, and
reasonable restrictions can be placed on
them. While it is true that one of the
considerations in deciding whether to
grant bail to an accused or not is whether
he has been in jail for a long time, the
Court has also to take into consideration
other facts and circumstances, such as the
interest of the society."

31. Compelling the aforementioned
parameters, no doubt there are 16 cases to the
credit of the applicant but fact remains that, in
most of them the police has either submitted
the closure report, which has been accepted
by the Court or rest of them are State
sponsored.

32. Lastly it has been contended by
learned counsel for the complainant that bail
applications of co-accused persons Than
Singh and Bablu were rejected by the Coordinate Bench of this Court and, as such, the
applicant too deserves same treatment.

33. It is settled principles of law that the
principles of parity do not apply in rejection.
The applicant is in jail since 30.10.2019 and
there is no possibility of early conclusion of
trial in near future and prima facie it seems
that none of the conduct of the applicant
would attract any of the provisions of Section
107 of I.P.C. (if taken the dying-declaration
of Jogendra Singh to be true for the sake of
argument). It also seems that it is the
handiwork of police personnel who used the
deceased's son Jagdish as a tool to falsely
implicate all his opponents.

34. Taking into account the totality of
circumstances, the old age of applicant
being 75 years, more particularly the
genesis of F.I.R. No.179 of 2019 and its
background this Court is impelled to put a
grave question mark over the integrity and
modus operandi of the police. As such, the
applicant deserves to be bailed out.

35. Keeping in view the nature of the
offence, evidence on record regarding
complicity of the accused, larger mandate
of the Article 21 of the Constitution of
2 All. Mohan Shyam Vs. State of U.P.
909
India and the dictum of Apex Court in the
case of Dataram Singh Vs. State of U.P.
and another reported in (2018)3 SCC 22
and without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the
considered opinion that the applicant has
made out a case for bail. The bail
application is allowed.

36. Let the applicant Mohan Shyam,
involved in aforementioned case crime, be
released on bail on his 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 APPLICANT SHALL
FILE AN UNDERTAKING TO THE
EFFECT THAT HE SHALL NOT SEEK
ANY ADJOURNMENT ON THE DATE
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 HIS COUNSEL. IN CASE OF
HIS ABSENCE, WITHOUT SUFFICIENT
CAUSE, THE TRIAL COURT MAY
PROCEED
AGAINST
HIM
UNDER
SECTION 229-A IPC.

(iii)
IN
CASE,
THE
APPLICANT MISUSES THE LIBERTY
OF BAIL DURING TRIAL AND IN
ORDER TO SECURE HIS PRESENCE
PROCLAMATION UNDER SECTION 82
CR.P.C., MAY BE ISSUED AND IF
APPLICANT
FAILS
TO
APPEAR
BEFORE THE COURT ON THE DATE
FIXED IN SUCH PROCLAMATION,
THEN, THE TRIAL COURT SHALL
INITIATE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST
HIM, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW,
UNDER SECTION 174-A IPC.

(iv) THE APPLICANT SHALL
REMAIN
PRESENT,
IN
PERSON,
BEFORE THE TRIAL COURT ON
DATES FIXED FOR (1) OPENING OF
THE CASE, (2) FRAMING OF CHARGE
AND (3) 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
HIM
IN
ACCORDANCE
WITH LAW.

(v) THE TRIAL COURT MAY
MAKE
ALL
POSSIBLE
EFFORTS/ENDEAVOUR AND TRY TO
CONCLUDE THE TRIAL WITHIN A
PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE
RELEASE OF THE APPLICANT.

37. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail.

38. It is made clear that observations
made in granting bail to the applicant shall
not in any way affect the learned trial Judge
in forming his independent opinion based
on the testimony of the witnesses.

39. Since the bail application has been
decided
under
extra-ordinary
circumstances, thus in the interest of justice
following additional conditions are being
imposed just to facilitate the applicant to be