# Susheela Devi v. State Of U.P - **Citation:** (2016) 7 ILRA 1062 - **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad - **Decided:** 2016-07-11 - **Bench:** Karuna Nand Bajpayee - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/susheela-devi-v-state-of-u-p-43957 - **Pages:** 4 ## Text 1062 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that he is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make himself available before the court whenever required. 4. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 5. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 6. Let the applicant- Raj Bahadur, involved in Case Crime No. 243 of 2014, u/s 498A, 304B I.P.C. and 3/4 D.P. Act, P.S.- Raipura, District- Chitrakoot, be released on bail on his executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions:- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and his personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 7. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 8. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. --------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 11.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE KARUNA NAND BAJPAYEE, J. Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.- 21690 Of 2016 7 All. Susheela Devi Vs State Of U.P. 1063 Susheela Devi ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. ...Opposite Party Counsel for Applicant: Sri Ravindra Kumar Dwivedi, Sri Dalvir Singh Counsel for Opposite Party/State: Government Advocate, Sri Geetam Singh (for Complainant) Bail -- Section 306 read with Section 120B I.P.C. -- Abetment of Suicide -- Prima Facie Case -- Evidence of Abetment -- Applicant/accused Susheela Devi is the wife of the deceased -- deceased Ranjeet Singh Tomar consumed poison and died while being taken to Medical College, Kanpur -- prosecution case is that applicant and her parental family insisted that deceased should always remain in his in-laws' house and not with his own parents causing unpleasantness and bickering -- on the day of occurrence deceased who had come to take back his wife was humiliated and in that state consumed poison -- applicant is widowed wife with no criminal history, in jail since 01.06.2016 -- Held: abetment requires active instigations, instigation or intentional aiding -- there has to be tangible evidence indicating the act of abetment -- the mere existence of unpleasantness and bickering between parties, even if caused by unreasonable demands of the applicant's family, does not by itself establish abetment -- the evidence collected during investigation falls far short of establishing any prima facie case of abetment -- it would be far-fetched to presume that a widowed wife had intentionally aided or instigated commission of suicide -- prima facie case for bail is made out. (Paras 4) Bail Application Allowed -- Applicant Susheela Devi involved in Case Crime No. 900 of 2015 under Sections 306 and 120B I.P.C., P.S. Aliganj, District Etah, directed to be released on bail on executing personal bond and two sureties each in like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned, subject to conditions: (i) not to tamper with prosecution evidence in any manner; (ii) to personally appear on every date in the court below. (Para 5) (Delivered by Hon'ble Karuna Nand Bajpayee, J.) 1. Sri Dalvir Singh, Advocate has filed power on behalf of the applicant today, which is taken on record. Sri Geetam Singh, Advocate has also filed power on behalf of the complainant today, which is taken on record. 2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. 3. Perused the record. 4. Submission of the counsel for the applicant is that the deceased was the husband of the applicant and during the time of incident, the applicant and the deceased, both were in her parental house. Further submission is that the prosecution story is that the applicant and the family members of her parental side wanted the applicant to stay with his wife in his in-laws' house and not with his own parents. It was because of this background that unpleasantness and bickering started and on the day of occurrence also, it is said that the deceased wanted to take back the applicant to his house but she declined to do so which resulted in further unpleasantness. Counsel has drawn the 1064 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES attention of the Curt to the statements of Shankar Singh Kushwaha, Vijay Rathore and Vijay Chauhan, who belong to the village of the applicant and whose statements have been recorded in the case diary by the investigating officer. Submission is that even these statements would reveal that as the deceased felt humiliated because of discourtesy shown to him by the applicant and her other family members, he took the extreme step of committing suicide. It was further emphasized that subsequently after the deceased consumed poison, he was rushed to the hospital in order to save his life. Counsel for the applicant has further drawn the attention of the Court to the annexure no. 9, which is a certificate given by Dr. K.M. Dwivedi certifying the fact that the deceased Ranjeet Singh Tomar was admitted to the hospital on 18.12.2015 at 2.25 P.M. as a case of suspected poisoning and he was brought to the hospital by Sri Brijendra Singh, who is the father of the applicant, that is to say father-in-law of the deceased. But as the condition of the deceased deteriorated, he was referred to Medical College, Kanpur for further treatment but while he was still on his way, he succumbed and died. Submission of the counsel is that though the deceased had taken extreme step of committing suicide because of the family discord and the tense relationship, but there was no question for the applicant to abet the deceased to commit suicide. The prosecution evidence whatever has been collected is also falling short of indicating that there was, at all, any abetment done on the part of the applicant. Contention is that though the oversensitivity of the deceased led him to take extreme step of committing suicide, but there has to be some tangible evidence to indicate that the act of abetment was done by the applicant or anybody else. Further submission is that though in certain cases such circumstances may be shown that the fact of abetment may be proved by circumstantial evidence also but in the present case there is no such evidence collected by the investigating officer and what has been collected during the course of investigation shows only the unpleasantness that existed between the applicant and the deceased and nothing more. Contention is that in fact the insistence of the applicant and her family members was that the deceased should stay with his wife all the time in his in-laws' house and not that the applicant ever wanted to get rid of her husband. It is very unfortunate that this demand of the applicant and her family members which may, to a great extent, be said to be unreasonable and extravagant has resulted in the death of the deceased but in the absence of any tangible evidence to conclusively prove the act of abetment, a prima facie case for bail in favour of the applicant is clearly made out. According to the counsel, it shall be overstretching the facts and shall be far fetched to allege or presume that the applicant, who is the widowed wife either intentionally aided or instigated the commission of suicide. The facts as have been collected by the investigating officer in the particular case fall far short of proving any such aid or instigation. Several other submissions in order to demonstrate the falsity of the allegations made against the applicant have also been placed forth before the Court. The circumstances which, according to the counsel, led to the false implication of the accused have also been touched upon at length. It has been assured on behalf of the applicant that she is ready to cooperate with the process of law and shall faithfully make herself available before the court whenever required. Lastly, it has also been pointed out that the accused is not having any criminal history and she is in jail since 1.6.2016 and that in the wake of heavy pendency of cases in the Court, there is no likelihood of any early conclusion of trial. 5. Learned A.G.A. opposed the prayer for bail. 7 All. Ashutosh Pathak Vs State Of U.P. & Anr. 1065 6. After perusing the record in the light of the submissions made at the bar and after taking an overall view of all the facts and circumstances of this case, the nature of evidence, the period of detention already undergone, the unlikelihood of early conclusion of trial and also the absence of any convincing material to indicate the possibility of tampering with the evidence, this Court is of the view that the applicant may be enlarged on bail. 7. Let the applicant- Susheela Devi, involved in Case Crime No. 900 of 2015, u/s 306, 120B I.P.C., P.S.- Aliganj, District- Etah, be released on bail on her executing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned on the following conditions :- (1) The applicant will not make any attempt to tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner whatsoever. (2) The applicant will personally appear on each and every date in the court and her personal presence shall not be exempted unless the court itself deems it fit to do so in the interest of justice. 8. It may be observed that in the event of any breach of the aforesaid conditions, the court below shall be at liberty to proceed for the cancellation of applicant's bail. 9. It is clarified that the observations, if any, made in this order are strictly confined to the disposal of the bail application and must not be construed to have any reflection on the ultimate merits of the case. ---------- ORIGINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL SIDE DATED: ALLAHABAD 27.07.2016 BEFORE THE HON'BLE PRAMOD KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J. Application U/S 482 No.- 22137 Of 2016 Ashutosh Pathak ...Applicant Versus State Of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties Counsel for Applicant: Santosh Kumar Shukla, Surya Pratap Singh Parmar Counsel for Opposite Parties: G.A.