# Saurabh Meena v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2025) 2 ILRA 4
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-02-20
- **Case number:** Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39053 of 2024
- **Bench:** Krishan Pahal
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/saurabh-meena-v-state-of-u-p-53150
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 306, 376, 313 & 323- Bail -
Abetment of Suicide - Allegations of
coercing victim into repeated abortions -
Suicide note silent on applicant's role -
FIR initially under Section 302 IPC, later
converted to Section 306 IPC - No direct
incitement or overt act attributed to
applicant - Victim found hanging in
locked room - No evidence of forcible
entry or strangulation - Allegation of
illegal
influence
in
investigation
unfounded - Held, prima facie ingredients
of Section 306 IPC not satisfied - Bail
granted. (Paras 33 to 37)

HELD:
It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is
to secure the attendance of the accused at the
trial. No material particulars or circumstances
suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles in the shape of repeating offences or
intimidating witnesses and the like have been
shown by learned A.G.A. (Para 33)

The FIR mentions the fact that the applicant
had committed the murder of the deceased
person, but the investigation St.s otherwise. It
St.s that it is a case of abetment to suicide. The
door of the deceased person is St.d to have
been broke open by the guard and the security
officer of the society. (Para 35)

No direct overt act has been assigned to the
applicant of having abetted the deceased to
commit suicide. It is true that the deceased
being a woman might have been under stress.
(Para 36)

It is admitted in the instant case that the
applicant and the deceased person were having
consensual corporeal relationship with each
other. The element of abetting the deceased to
commit suicide seems to be missing in the
instant case. (Para 37)

Bail Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

4 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2025) 2 ILRA 4
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.02.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE KRISHAN PAHAL, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 39053 of
2024

Saurabh Meena ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Opposite Party

Counsel for the Applicant:
Ankit Prakash, Parijat Mishra, Sushil Shukla,
Vimlendu Tripathi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A., Ganga Bhushan Mishra

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code, 1860 -
Sections 306, 376, 313 & 323- Bail -
Abetment of Suicide - Allegations of
coercing victim into repeated abortions -
Suicide note silent on applicant's role -
FIR initially under Section 302 IPC, later
converted to Section 306 IPC - No direct
incitement or overt act attributed to
applicant - Victim found hanging in
locked room - No evidence of forcible
entry or strangulation - Allegation of
illegal
influence
in
investigation
unfounded - Held, prima facie ingredients
of Section 306 IPC not satisfied - Bail
granted. (Paras 33 to 37)

HELD:
It is settled principle of law that the object of bail is
to secure the attendance of the accused at the
trial. No material particulars or circumstances
suggestive of the applicant fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating other
troubles in the shape of repeating offences or
intimidating witnesses and the like have been
shown by learned A.G.A. (Para 33)

The FIR mentions the fact that the applicant
had committed the murder of the deceased
person, but the investigation St.s otherwise. It
St.s that it is a case of abetment to suicide. The
door of the deceased person is St.d to have
been broke open by the guard and the security
officer of the society. (Para 35)

No direct overt act has been assigned to the
applicant of having abetted the deceased to
commit suicide. It is true that the deceased
being a woman might have been under stress.
(Para 36)

It is admitted in the instant case that the
applicant and the deceased person were having
consensual corporeal relationship with each
other. The element of abetting the deceased to
commit suicide seems to be missing in the
instant case. (Para 37)

Bail Application allowed. (E-14)

List of Cases cited:

1. Ude Singh Vs St. of Har., (2019) 17 SCC 301

2. Satender Kumar Antil Vs CBI, 2022 INSC 690

3.
Manish
Sisodia
Vs
Directorate
of
Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595

4. Niranjan Singh Vs Prabhakar Rajaram
Kharote, AIR 1980 SC 785

(Delivered by Hon'ble Krishan Pahal, J.)

1. List has been revised.

2. Heard Sri Sushil Shukla, learned
counsel for the applicant and Sri Raj
Kumar Pandey, Advocate holding brief of
Sri
Ganga
Bhushan
Mishra,
learned
counsel for the informant as well as Sri
Deepak Kumar Singh, learned A.G.A. for
the State and perused the record.

3. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime
No.308 of 2024, under Sections 323, 313,
376 and 306 I.P.C., Police Station Sector39, District Gautam Buddh Nagar, during
the pendency of trial.
2 All. Saurabh Meena Vs. State of U.P.
5

PROSECUTION STORY:

4. The applicant is stated to have
called the informant and stated that his
daughter is dead in his house, as such, the
informant rushed all the way from Aligarh
to Noida.

5. The FIR was instituted by the
informant with the allegations that the
deceased person was pregnant at that time
and she had got her fetus aborted at the
behest of the applicant.

6. There are other allegations against the
applicant of having asked the deceased
person to sell her house and they both shall
buy a property in their joint names. The
applicant used to even ask the deceased to
sell her car. There are allegations that the
applicant used to misbehave with the
deceased person and even used to beat her up.

7. The applicant had committed the
murder of the daughter of the informant, as
such, the FIR was instituted by him on
26.05.2024.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
APPLICANT:

8. The applicant is absolutely innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the
present case.

9. Initially, the FIR was instituted
under Sections 302, 323, 313 and 376
I.P.C., but subsequently after thorough
investigation, the final report (charge-sheet)
has been filed under Sections 376, 306, 323
and 313 I.P.C. only and Section 302 I.P.C.
has been converted to Section 306 I.P.C.

10. Prior to the institution of the FIR, the
inquest proceedings was already complete.
The inquest proceedings was taken up on
25.05.2024 only and was completed by 9:10
p.m. the same night.

11. The post-mortem examination of the
deceased was done on the next day i.e. on
26.05.2024 at 4:30 p.m.

12. The suicide note of the deceased
person does not indicate any ingredients of
Section 306 I.P.C. as there is not an inkling of
a word against the applicant having abetted
the deceased to commit suicide. No overt act
has been assigned to him.

13. Much reliance has been placed on
the statement of a common friend, namely,
Rudrika Sharma, who has categorically
stated that the applicant had called her on
the date of incident itself and had informed
her that the deceased person had closed the
door and is not opening it. After much
persuasion, the door could be broke open
with the help of guard and security officer of
the society.

14. The statements of the said guard and
security officer corroborate the said statement
of the accused that the door of the room of
deceased was broke opon by them.

15. It is a clear-cut case of suicide as in
the autopsy report, the doctor has opined that
the cause of death is asphyxia as a result of
ante-mortem hanging. The allegation of
having committed the murder stands
falsified.

16. Several other submissions have
been made on behalf of the applicant to
demonstrate the falsity of the allegations
made against him. The circumstances
which, as per counsel, led to the false
implication of the applicant have also been
touched upon at length.
6 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

17. There is no criminal history of the
applicant. The applicant is languishing in
jail since 26.05.2024 and is ready to
cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant
is released on bail, he will not misuse the
liberty of bail.

ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF
STATE/INFORMANT:

18. The bail application has been
opposed on the ground that it is a clear-cut
case where the applicant has used his clout
as he is an Indian Revenue Officer (I.R.S.).
His family is a renowned family, whereby
many persons are Administrative Officers,
including I.A.S., I.P.S. and I.R.S.

19. The applicant has misused his
clout
and
has
got
conducted
the
investigation to his dictates, as such, the
final
report
(charge-sheet)
has
been
submitted at the behest of the applicant.

20. The tainted investigation is but
evident from the fact that the post-mortem
report indicates that the rigor mortis was
present only in lower extremities of the
body. It implies that the time of death may
be between 24-36 hours as per the Modi's
Book
of
Medical
Jurisprudence
and
Toxicology.

21. The time of death as narrated by
the
applicant
in
his
statement
as
corroborated by a common friend Rudrika
Sharma does not find corroboration from
the said autopsy report.

22. Learned counsel for the informant
has placed much reliance on his counter
affidavit, whereby several WhatsApp chats
between the two have been annexed. On
06.05.2024 at 5:55:22 AM, the deceased
had sent the following message:

"Shilpa: Saurabh I still haven't
had periods from that ipill. I can't handle
this alone. I can't handle this madness
alone. You didn't let the speak yesterday
about it. I still have you inside me. I have
killed many of our kids like this before. I
kept thinking when you said go and find
someone to have kids with and I thought all
this while I was getting pregnant with you
and I chose to kill them all with these ipills.
My spot in hell is fixed. I can't live like this
and I can't offer this body now to another.
With nothing to offer another man. I can't
go anywhere now. I was with you in all of
with all of me."

23. The deceased had sent another
message the same day at 5:56:13 AM,
which reads as under:

"Shilpa:
Think
how
much
mentally I am affected with atleast 10 ipills
with you and an abortion and you ask me to
go to someone to have kids with."

24. The aforesaid statements indicate
that the deceased was badly in love with
the applicant, but it was the applicant who
had misused his clout and did not marry her
and did not let the deceased bear a child out
of their corporeal relationship. She has
categorically mentioned there that she had
missed her menstruation cycle, as such,
was pregnant and she does not want to
further get her fetus aborted, as was done
before.

25. It implies that it was the applicant
who had forced the deceased person to
commit suicide.

26. Learned counsel for the informant
has further placed much reliance on several
photographs of the deceased, whereby the
said photographs indicates that the colour
2 All. Saurabh Meena Vs. State of U.P.
7
of the upper of the deceased is different as
in one coloured photograph, her upper was
found to be of blue in colour, while the
another photograph filed by the police
during investigation is indicative of it being
of white in colour, as such, it is a clear-cut
case of illegal investigation.

27. The deceased herself was serving
in BHEL, Noida and she had an excellent
career and a lady of bright future has been
put to death at the behest of the applicant,
as such, the applicant is not entitled for
bail.

CONCLUSION:

28. ?The Supreme Court in the case of
Niranjan
Singh
and
another
vs.
Prabhakar
Rajaram
Kharote
and
Others, AIR 1980 SC 785 has avoided
detailed examination of the evidence and
elaborate documentation of the merits of
the case as no party should have the
impression
that
his
case
has
been
prejudiced. A prima facie satisfaction of
case is needed but it is not the same as an
exhaustive exploration of the merits in the
order itself.

29. The well-known principle of
"Presumption of Innocence Unless Proven
Guilty," gives rise to the concept of bail as
a rule and imprisonment as an exception.

30. A person's right to life and liberty,
guaranteed by Article 21 of the Indian
Constitution, cannot be taken away simply
because
the
person
is
accused
of
committing an offence until the guilt is
established beyond a reasonable doubt.
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution states
that no one's life or personal liberty may be
taken
away
unless
the
procedure
established by law is followed, and the
procedure must be just and reasonable. The
said principle has been recapitulated by the
Supreme Court in Satender Kumar Antil
vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Ors., 2022 INSC 690.

31. Reiterating the aforesaid view the
Supreme Court in the case of Manish
Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement,
2024 INSC 595 has again emphasised that
the very well-settled principle of law that
bail is not to be withheld as a punishment is
not to be forgotten. It is high time that the
Courts should recognize the principle that
"bail is a rule and jail is an exception".

32. ?Learned A.G.A. could not bring
forth any exceptional circumstances which
would warrant denial of bail to the
applicant.

33. ?It is settled principle of law that
the object of bail is to secure the attendance
of the accused at the trial. No material
particulars or circumstances suggestive of
the applicant fleeing from justice or
thwarting the course of justice or creating
other troubles in the shape of repeating
offences or intimidating witnesses and the
like have been shown by learned A.G.A.

34. The Supreme Court in Ude Singh
and Ors. vs. State of Haryana, (2019) 17
SCC 301 observed:-

"16. In cases of alleged abetment
of suicide, there must be a proof of direct
or indirect act/s of incitement to the
commission of suicide. It could hardly be
disputed that the question of cause of a
suicide, particularly in the context of an
offence of abetment of suicide, remains a
vexed one, involving multifaceted and
complex attributes of human behavior and
responses/reactions.
In
the
case
of
8 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
accusation for abetment of suicide, the
Court would be looking for cogent and
convincing proof of the act/s of incitement
to the commission of suicide. In the case of
suicide, mere allegation of harassment of
the deceased by another person would not
suffice unless there be such action on the
part of the accused which compels the
person to commit suicide; and such an
offending action ought to be proximate to
the time of occurrence. Whether a person
has abetted in the commission of suicide by
another or not, could only be gathered from
the facts and circumstances of each case.

16.1. For the purpose of finding
out if a person has abetted commission of
suicide by another; the consideration would
be if the accused is guilty of the act of
instigation of the act of suicide. As
explained and reiterated by this Court in the
decisions abovereferred, instigation means
to goad, urge forward, provoke, incite or
encourage to do an act. If the persons who
committed suicide had been hypersensitive
and the action of accused is otherwise not
ordinarily expected to induce a similarly
circumstanced person to commit suicide, it
may not be safe to hold the accused guilty
of abetment of suicide. But, on the other
hand, if the accused by his acts and by his
continuous course of conduct creates a
situation
which
leads
the
deceased
perceiving no other option except to
commit suicide, the case may fall within
the four-corners of Section 306 IPC. If the
accused plays an active role in tarnishing
the self esteem and self-respect of the
victim, which eventually draws the victim
to commit suicide, the accused may be held
guilty of abetment of suicide. The question
of mens rea on the part of the accused in
such cases would be examined with
reference to the actual acts and deeds of the
accused and if the acts and deeds are only
of such nature where the accused intended
nothing more than harassment or snap
show of anger, a particular case may fall
short of the offence of abetment of suicide.
However, if the accused kept on irritating
or annoying the deceased by words or
deeds until the deceased reacted or was
provoked, a particular case may be that of
abetment of suicide. Such being the matter
of delicate analysis of human behaviour,
each case is required to be examined on its
own facts, while taking note of all the
surrounding factors having bearing on the
actions and psyche of the accused and the
deceased.?

35. The FIR mentions the fact that the
applicant had committed the murder of the
deceased person, but the investigation
states otherwise. It states that it is a case of
abetment to suicide. The door of the
deceased person is stated to have been
broke open by the guard and the security
officer of the society.

36. No direct overt act has been
assigned to the applicant of having abetted
the deceased to commit suicide. It is true
that the deceased being a woman might
have been under stress. There is a saying of
'George Bernard Shaw', which reads as
under:

"It is a woman's business to get
married as soon as possible, and a man's to
keep unmarried as long as he can."

37. It is admitted in the instant case
that the applicant and the deceased person
were
having
consensual
corporeal
relationship with each other. The element
of abetting the deceased to commit suicide
seems to be missing in the instant case.

38. Considering the aforementioned
facts and circumstances of the case,
2 All. Prakash Narain & Ors. Vs. Hari Bux Singh & Ors.
9
submissions made by learned counsel for
the parties, the evidence on record, and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, the Court is of the view
that the applicant has made out a case for
bail. The bail application is allowed.

39. Let the applicant- Saurabh Meena
involved in aforementioned 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.

(i) The applicant shall not tamper
with evidence.

(ii) 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/351
B.N.S.S. 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.

40. In case of breach of any of the
above conditions, it shall be a ground for
cancellation of bail. Identity, status and
residence proof of the applicant and
sureties be verified by the court concerned
before the bonds are accepted.

41. 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.
----------
(2025) 2 ILRA 9
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 17.02.2025
BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJNISH KUMAR, J.

First Appeal From Order No. 32 of 2022

Prakash Narain & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Hari Bux Singh & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Ankit Pande

Counsel for the Respondents:
Onkar Nath Pandey

Civil Law-The Code of Civil Procedure,
1908-Sections 96, 100 & 107 - Order 41 -
Rule 17, 23, 23-A, 25 & Order 43 Rule (1)
(u))-Appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(U)
against the remand order passed by the
Appellate Court---If particular issue of limitation
was not framed by the trial court as recorded by
the lower appellate court and on the basis of
record the trial court has recorded a finding
which shows the suit is not time barred, it could
have considered the same and recorded a
finding thereon, if the evidence is sufficient by
framing a issue, if required as first appeal is in
continuation of the suit and appellate court has
all the powers for considering suit on facts as
well as law---Admittedly the commission report
is on record, but no objection to the same has
been filed by the defendant-respondents and no
finding has been recorded by the trial court that
it is not satisfied with the proceedings and the
report of commissioner, therefore, it stands final
and if it has not been considered by the trial
court and the lower appellate court was of the
view that it was required to be considered, it
could have considered the same and upon
considering it an independent finding could have
been recorded and after it if the appellate court
was of the view that the matter is required to be
remanded, it could have remanded recording
specific findings as remand on technical ground
without affecting merit is not tenable.(Para 36
& 40)

The impugned order was passed without dealing
with the case as an appellate court under
Section 96 of C.P.C. and exercising the powers