# Siddharth Kappor v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2022) 8 ILRA 265
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-20
- **Case number:** Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4040 of 2022
- **Bench:** Suresh Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/siddharth-kappor-v-state-of-u-p-anr-48756
- **Pages:** 7

## Headnote

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 82 & 83 -If
any person has filed any anticipatory bail
application before the learned court below
showing his reasonable apprehension of
arrest in a case where the allegations of
the
prosecution
prima
facie
do
not
corroborate with the material available on
record
and
his/her
anticipatory
bail
application is rejected, he or she has got
a right to approach the High Court for
such
anticipatory
bail
and
if
the
interregnum period any proclamation u/S
82 and 83 Cr.P.C. is issued it may be
considered as a circumventive exercise
being taken by the Investigating Officer.
No one can be restrained from taking
legal course strictly in accordance with
law and such legal right may not be
prevented even if any process is adopted
by any authority which is not permissible
under the law.

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
306- Before holding an accused guilty of
an offence u/S 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 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
IPC
is
not
sustainable.

Application allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

8 All. Siddharth Kappor Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
265
orders, Section 482 Cr.P.C cannot be
availed to achieve the same objective.

38. On the basis of above discussions,
this Court is of the considered view that the
present petition / application u/s 482 Cr.P.C
filed the accused-applicant against the
impugned order is devoid of merits and is
not maintainable. Hence, the present
Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C is accordingly
dismissed.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 265
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SURESH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Crl. Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application No. 4040
of 2022
(U/s 438 Cr.P.C.)

Siddharth Kappor ...Applicant
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Vikrant Rana, Sri Anoop Trivedi (Sr.
Advocate)

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Sri Vinay Sharma

A. Criminal Law - Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 - Section 82 & 83 -If
any person has filed any anticipatory bail
application before the learned court below
showing his reasonable apprehension of
arrest in a case where the allegations of
the
prosecution
prima
facie
do
not
corroborate with the material available on
record
and
his/her
anticipatory
bail
application is rejected, he or she has got
a right to approach the High Court for
such
anticipatory
bail
and
if
the
interregnum period any proclamation u/S
82 and 83 Cr.P.C. is issued it may be
considered as a circumventive exercise
being taken by the Investigating Officer.
No one can be restrained from taking
legal course strictly in accordance with
law and such legal right may not be
prevented even if any process is adopted
by any authority which is not permissible
under the law.

B. Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section
306- Before holding an accused guilty of
an offence u/S 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 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
IPC
is
not
sustainable.

Application allowed. (E-12)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu Vs St. of W.B.

2. Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs State (Govt. of
NCT of Delhi) dercided on 10.08.2009 in
Criminal Appeal No. 1473 of 2009
(Delivered by Hon'ble Suresh Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today
is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Anoop Trivedi, learned
Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vikrant
Rana, learned counsel for the applicant, the
266 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
learned Additional Government Advocate
for the State as well as Shri Vinay Sharma,
learned counsel for the first informant and
perused the record.

3. This anticipatory bail application
under section 438 Cr.P.C. has been moved
seeking anticipatory bail in Case Crime No.
23 of 2022, under sections- 306, 506 IPC,
Police Station Lal Kurti, District Meerut.

4. Brief fact of the case emerges as
such that an FIR was lodged by the
opposite party no.2 under Section 306 IPC
on 12.2.2022 against Pradeep Kumar,
Shahzad and one unknown person alleging
therein that her husband namely Yogendra
Chaudhary borrowed some money in
installment from Rajkumar Sirohi, Aastha
Finance Company, 2nd Floor near Nandni
Bar and Restaurant, Garh Road, Meerut
and her husband was paying the said
amount in installment, but the aforesaid
company and his associates namely Honey
and Harish Sonkar demanding more money
from her husband and asked him that in
case, he does not pay the money to them,
they will not spare him and his family
members and the said things were told by
her husband to her and on account of the
same, he lost his mental balance and
committed suicide on 11.2.2022. The
suicide note was recovered in which the
mobile number of the applicant and his
father Sri Shashi Kapoor i.e. 9837088231
included and after the said incident, the coaccused Rajkumar Sirohi came to her house
on 12.2.2022 between 6.00 am to 7.00 am
along with his son Akash Sirohi and
unknown persons and left the place with
the words that Yogendra has gone and now
they will recover their money from them
and they will compel them also to commit
suicide. It was further alleged that she was
not in a position to give a complaint and the
names of the accused persons are written in
the suicide note which was found to her has
been annexed with the application.

5. The learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the applicant is
innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the present case due to ulterior motive. It is
further stated that while studying in class
11th, the applicant came into contact of
daughter of opposite party no.2 namely
Tanya and friendship developed between
each other. On 25.6.2013, the applicant
along with daughter of the first informant
and other friends went to have lunch at
Manssorpur in a car having registration no.
UK-08-AA 0874 in the name of father of
applicant, which was driven by his driver
namely Naveen Chand. After having lunch,
while returning to their place, the said car
driven by the said driver Naveen Chand
was hit by a Truck having registration no.
HR-55-AM 4999 which resulted into
serious accident and in the said accident,
the daughter of the first informant died and
the applicant also received injuries.

6. The learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that the FIR of the
aforesaid incident was lodged by the said
driver Naveen Chand at P.S. Daraula,
Meerut on 25.6.2013 against the driver of
the said Truck which was registered as
Case Crime No. 415 of 2013 U/s 279/304A
IPC. It is further stated that after
investigation, the final report no. 315/2013
dated 10.11.2013 was submitted by the
police in the court concerned. It is further
stated that after the death of the daughter of
the first informant, she and her husband
namely Shri Yogendra Singh filed Motor
Accident Claim Petition bearing MACT
petition no. 794 of 2013 which is still
pending, in which the husband alleged in
his plaint that the accident in question took
8 All. Siddharth Kappor Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
267
place due to rash and negligent driving of
the said Truck and the car bearing No.UK08-AA-0874. Thus, the truck owner is
liable to pay compensation to them.

7. The learned counsel for the
applicant further states that soon after the
aforesaid accident, the husband of the
opposite party no.2 started blackmailing
and demanding Rs. 10 lacs on the pretext
that he will send the applicant behind bars
in the case of death of his daughter and also
extended the threats of dire consequences,
if he does not fulfil his illegal demand. It is
further submitted that in the FIR, it is
admitted fact that the husband of opposite
party no.2 took loan from one Raj Kumar
Sirohi who was demanding his money from
him. It is further stated that the husband of
the opposite party no.2 also took home loan
of Rs. 15 lacs from H.D.F.C. Bank which
could not be repaid by him and due to
which, he committed suicide on 11.2.2022.

8. It is further stated by the learned
counsel
for
the
applicant
that
the
investigating officer during investigation
apart from two slips, the investigating
officer obtained a copy of alleged draft
email dated 4.1.2022 from the mobile
phone of the deceased in which the name of
the applicant and his father's name was
disclosed. It is also submitted that in the
said draft mail, he clearly addressed that
the Hon'ble Chief Minister is also liable for
his suicide.

9. The learned counsel for the applicant
submits that there is no instant instigation by
the applicant and there is no motive or
intention to instigate the deceased for
committing suicide on 11.2.2022. Thus, it is
clear that the deceased committed suicide
after one month and seven days of the alleged
draft suicide note in the mobile of the
deceased. It is further submitted that a perusal
of the FIR and statement, no offence U/s 306
IPC is made out against the applicant. In
support of his submissions, he has placed
reliance upon the judgement of the Apex
Court in the case of Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu
vs. State of West Bengal in which it was held
as under:

"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 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."

10. The learned counsel for the
applicant further submits that earlier before
availing the remedy of anticipatory bail
268 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
application before this court, the applicant
and father of the applicant approached the
sessions court and filed the anticipatory bail
application which was duly rejected on
21.4.2022. It is further submitted that the
investigating officer, who anyhow wanted to
arrest
the
applicant,
deliberately
or
intentionally procured an order U/s 82 CrPC
on 29.4.2022. But the said order dated
29.4.2022 never came to the knowledge of
the applicant. Therefore, the applicant filed
anticipatory bail application on 5.5.2022. It is
further stated that it is not the case where the
investigating officer obtained the order of
N.B.W. and process U/s 82 CrPC prior to
filing of the said anticipatory bail application
before the court below. The N.B.W. as well
as process U/s 82 CrPC was issued against
the applicant while the applicant is availing
statutory remedy given by the appropriate
court. Therefore, the learned counsel submits
that the applicant is not an absconder
inasmuch the N.B.W. and process U/s 82
CrPC was issued against the applicant during
statutory remedy available. It is further
submitted that in a catena of judgements of
the Apex Court as well as this Court, it has
been held that in the intervening period, when
the applicant avails his remedy, then only on
the basis of process U/s 82 CrPC, the
anticipatory bail cannot be denied.

11. Lastly, the learned counsel for the
applicant submits that the father of
applicant
has
already
been
granted
anticipatory
bail
by
sessions
court
concerned having similar allegations vide
order dated 21.4.2022. The applicant has no
previous criminal history and therefore, he
seeks anticipatory bail. He is ready to
cooperate in the investigation.

12. Learned A.G.A. as well as the
counsel for the first informant vehemently
opposed the prayer for anticipatory bail of
the applicant and has submitted that the
offence is serious in nature. Hence, the
application is liable to be rejected. In
support of his submission, he relies upon
the judgement of the Apex Court in the
case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs. State
(Govt. of NCT of Delhi) decided on
10.8.2009 in Criminal Appeal No. 1473 of
2009. The relevant portion of which is
being reproduced hereunder:

"10. Section 306 of the IPC reads
as under:

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

11. From a bare reading of the
provision, it is clear that to constitute an
offence under Section 306 IPC, the
prosecution has to establish: (i) that a
person committed suicide, and (ii) that such
suicide was abetted by the accused. In
other words, an offence under Section 306
would stand only if there is an "abetment"
for the commission of the crime. The
parameters of "abetment" have been stated
in Section 107 of the IPC, which defines
abetment of a thing as follows:

"107. Abetment of a thing A
person abets the doing of a thing, who -

First- 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
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.

Explanation 1- A person who by
wilful misrepresentation, or by wilful
concealment of a material fact which he is
8 All. Siddharth Kappor Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
269
bound to disclose, voluntarily causes or
procures, or attempts to cause or procure,
a thing to be done, is said to instigate the
doing of that thing."

12. As per the Section, a person
can be said to have abetted in doing a
thing, if he, 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
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.
Explanation to Section 107 states that any
wilful
misrepresentation
or
wilful
concealment of material fact which he is
bound to disclose, may also come within
the contours of "abetment". It is manifest
that under all the three situations, direct
involvement of the person or persons
concerned in the commission of offence of
suicide is essential to bring home the
offence under Section 306 of the IPC.

13. Therefore, the question for
consideration is whether the allegations
levelled against the appellant in the FIR
and the material collected during the
course of investigations, would attract any
one of the ingredients of Section 107 IPC?

14. As per clause firstly in the
said Section, a person can be said to have
abetted
in
doing
of
a
thing,
who
"instigates" any person to do that thing.
The word "instigate" is not defined in the
IPC. The meaning of the said word was
considered by this Court in Ramesh Kumar
Vs. State of Chhattisgarh. 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 be (2001) 9
SCC 618 capable of being 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.

15.
Thus,
to
constitute
"instigation", a person who instigates
another has to provoke, incite, urge or
encourage doing of an act by the other by
"goading" or "urging forward". The
dictionary meaning of the word "goad" is
"a thing that stimulates someone into
action: provoke to action or reaction" (See:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary); "to
keep irritating or annoying somebody until
he
reacts"
(See:
Oxford
Advanced
Learner's
Dictionary
-
7th
Edition).
Similarly, "urge" means to advise or try
hard
to
persuade
somebody
to
do
something or to make a person to move
more quickly and or in a particular
direction, especially by pushing or forcing
such person. Therefore, a person who
instigates another has to "goad" or "urge
forward" the latter with intention to
provoke, incite or encourage the doing of
an act by the latter. As observed in Ramesh
Kumar's case (supra), where the accused
by his acts or by a continued course of
conduct creates such circumstances that
the deceased was left with no other option
except to commit suicide, an "instigation"
may be inferred. In other words, in order to
prove that the accused abetted commission
of suicide by a person, it has to be
270 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
established that: (i) the accused kept on
irritating or annoying the deceased by
words, deeds or wilful omission or conduct
which may even be a wilful silence until the
deceased reacted or pushed or forced the
deceased by his deeds, words or wilful
omission or conduct to make the deceased
move forward more quickly in a forward
direction; and (ii) that the accused had the
intention to provoke, urge or encourage the
deceased to commit suicide while acting in
the manner noted above. Undoubtedly,
presence of mens rea is the necessary
concomitant of instigation."

13. The counsel for the opposite party
has stated that in suicide note, the name of
the applicant disclosed. The role of the
applicant could not be denied and he
extended threats for committing murder of
the deceased several times and as such, the
applicant made the deceased pressurize.
Due to this, the complainant's husband
committed suicide. It is further stated that
the name of the applicant is clearly
mentioned in the said suicide note. Thus,
this is not a case of anticipatory bail and if
the applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he
might not cooperate in the investigation. It
is also submitted that the applicant is an
absconder, so benefit of anticipatory bail
could not be granted to him.

14. Insofar as the argument of the
counsel for the first informant is concerned,
the counsel for the opposite party has failed
to adduce any evidence that the process U/s
82 CrPC was issued prior to pendency of
anticipatory bail application before the
learned trial court which was rejected on
21.4.2022 and process U/s 82 CrPC was
issued
on
29.4.2022.
However,
the
applicant
approached
this
Court
on
5.5.2022. Thus, it is admitted fact that the
process U/s 82 CrPC was issued after
rejection of the anticipatory bail application
by sessions court concerned.

15. The law is trite on the point that if
any person has filed any anticipatory bail
application before the learned court below
seeking anticipatory bail showing his
reasonable apprehension of arrest in a case
where the allegations of the prosecution
prima facie do not corroborate with the
material available on record and his
anticipatory bail application is rejected, he
has got a right to approach the High Court
for such anticipatory bail and if in the
interregnum period any proclamation u/s 82
& 83 Cr.P.C. is issued, it may be
considered as a circumventive exercise
being taken by the Investigating Officer.
No one can be restrained from taking legal
recourse strictly in accordance with law
and such legal right may not be prevented
even if any process is adopted by any
authority which is not permissible under
the law.

16. Therefore, in this matter, there is
no bar to interfere the anticipatory bail
application even after issuance of process
U/s 82 CrPC.

17. Considering the nature of
accusation as well as the fact that the
applicant has no criminal antecedent and
without expressing any opinion on the
merits of the case, I am of the view that in
this matter as the aforesaid suicide note was
written on 4.1.2022 and the deceased
committed suicide on 11.2.2022, there is no
instant instigation or abetment to commit
suicide and, as such, the applicant is
entitled to be released on anticipatory bail
in this case.

18. In the event of arrest, the
applicant- Siddharth Kappor involved in
8 All. Manish Vs. State of U.P.
271
the aforesaid crime shall be released on
anticipatory bail till the submission of
police report, if any, under section 173 (2)
Cr.P.C. before the competent court on his
furnishing a personal bond with two
sureties each in the like amount to the
satisfaction of the Station House Officer of
the police station concerned with the
following conditions:-

(i) the applicant shall make
himself available for interrogation by a
police officer as and when required;

(ii) 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 office;

(iii) the applicant shall not leave
India without the previous permission of
the Court and if he has passport the same
shall be deposited by him before the
S.S.P./S.P. concerned.

In
default
of
any
of
the
conditions, the Investigating Officer is at
liberty to file appropriate application for
cancellation of anticipatory bail granted to
the applicant.

The
Investigating
Officer
is
directed to conclude the investigation of the
present case in accordance with law
expeditiously preferably within a period of
three months from the date of production of
a certified copy of this order independently
without being prejudice by any observation
made by this Court while considering and
deciding the present anticipatory bail
application of the applicant.

The applicant is directed to
produce a certified copy of this order,
before the S.S.P./S.P. concerned within ten
days from today, who shall ensure the
compliance of present order.

19. In view of the aforesaid terms, the
application is disposed of.
----------
(2022) 8 ILRA 271
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.06.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAMEER JAIN, J.

Criminal Misc. Bail Application No. 24208 of
2022

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

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sri Kapil Tyagi

Counsel for the Opposite Party:
G.A.

Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code,1860 -
Section 302 &120(B) - Dying declaration
against the Applicant-Post Mortem-died due to
ante mortem burn injuries.

Bail Application dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1.Birjmani Devi Vs Pappu Kumar & anr. reported
in [2022 4 SCC 497]

2. Ms. Y. Vs St. of Raj. & anr. in Crl. Appeal No.
649 of 2022 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 7893 of
2021

3.Sabir Vs Bhura @ Nadeem & anr. in Crl.
Appeal No. 227 of 2022 (arising out of SLP (Crl.)
No. 6941 of 2021)

4.Sunder Lal Vs State reported in [1983 Crl J
736]

5.Chander @ Chandra Vs St. of U.P. reported in
[1998 CRI.I. J. 2374]