It also prima facie appears from the FIR and connected material that neither any meeting took place between the deceased and the applicant and other accused persons nor the deceased was summoned by the police after 30.6.2020 till the deceased committed suicide. It thus prima facie appears that there was no proximate cause for the deceased to commit suicide after 38 days of the last meeting on 30.7.2020. This was said in the case of Kiransinh Babarsinh Parmar Versus State Of Gujarat [R/CRIMINAL MISC.APPLICATION NO. 1425 of 2021] by Mr. Justice A.G.Uraizee in the High Court of Gujarat
The facts of the case are that the applications under section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 are preferred by the applicants for being enlarged on bail in connection with an FIR for the offence punishable under sections 306, 506(2), 386, 270, 271, 201, 120(B) and 114 of the Indian Penal Code.
The leaned counsel for the applicants submitted that the applicants are not named in the suicide note. It is his further submission that there is no allegation against the applicant regarding monetary gain or personal animosity with the deceased. He submits that section 386 of IPC states in respect of offence of extortion of putting a person in fear of death or grievance is not prima facie made out against the applicants. He submits that the deceased committed suicide on account of circumstances created by himself.
The learned counsel for de facto complainant submitted that applicants are police personnel and they had given threats to the deceased on 30.7.2020 in the farmhouse. Therefore, the applicants cannot claim parity with the accused 1 who has been released on bail. He submits that the applicants are involved in a serious offence. Hence, considering the gravity of offence, they may not be enlarged on bail.
The Court opined that “It is trite that abetment is a mental process of instigating a person or intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. There has to be prima facie evidence to indicate that the accused person had intentionally with full knowledge of consequence of his act aided or induced a person to do or not to do a particular thing Hence, without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, the necessary requirement of section 107 cannot be said to have been fulfilled. As a consequence, a person cannot be held responsible for offence under section 306 of IPC”.
The Court after analysing the facts of the case and perusing the contentions by both the parties said that “In the present case, undisputedly the last meeting had taken place on 30.7.2020 at a farmhouse between the applicant, the deceased and the original complainant amongst others. Prima facie appears that there was no proximate cause for the deceased to commit suicide after 38 days of the last meeting on 6.9.2020. Even in the suicide note, it is stated that there is a monetary dispute in respect of the land which was sold by the deceased”. Hence, the present applications was allowed and the applicants were ordered to be released on regular bail.