Libertatem Magazine

Allahabad HC Grants Bail in Case of Abetment of Suicide

Contents of this Page

On 14th of August, 2020 the High Court of Allahabad granted bail to Awanish Kumar @ Tipu who was accused of abetment of suicide of his wife-to-be. He has been in custody since September 2019. The Bench consisted of Hon’ble Justice Ramesh Sinha.

Facts of the Case

The deceased was said to be having an affair with the applicant, Awanish Kumar, for about two years. Some of her relatives, namely Abbu Kumar and Lallan (Co-accused) were allegedly harassing them. To this end, they did not let their marriage be solemnized. 

The deceased admittedly committed suicide by self-immolation. The post mortem report determined that injuries due to burns were the cause of death. The trial for the same has not yet commenced. 

The Applicant has been in prison since 9th of September, 2019. The present petition is filed, seeking his bail. The Applicant was arrested under Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide) of IPC at the Jangipur Police Station in Ghazipur district. 

Arguments before the Court

The Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Co-accused, Abbu Kumar and Lallan had already been granted bail in Criminal Misc. Bail Application No.42194 of 2019 and 52377 of 2019 respectively. Additionally, the Counsel mentioned that the competent Court also granted bail to the Applicant’s father. 

However, the Learned AGA for the State opposed the prayer for Applicant’s bail.  He opposed the bail for the following reasons. Firstly, the case was not considered by the Trial Court. Second, without considering the nature of accusation and the severity of punishment in case of conviction and the nature of supporting evidence, the Applicant should not be released on bail.

Observations of the Court

Given the submissions, the Court held that the applicant is entitled to be released on bail in this case. The Court ordered the Applicant to furnish a personal bond with two sureties each. The court concerned shall take an undertaking from the sureties that the properties movable/immovable which are the basis of accepting the surety, shall not be disposed of by them during the pendency of the trial.

The Court also laid down the following conditions, in the Order:

First, the Applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates 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 under law.

Second, 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 of the Indian Penal Code.

Third, in case the Applicant misuses the liberty of bail during trial and the applicant fails to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the Trial Court shall initiate proceedings against him, under law.

The applicant shall remain present, in person, before the Trial Court on the dates fixed for (i) opening of the case, (ii) framing of charge and (iii) recording of statement, as under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. If the Trial Court concludes that the Applicant’s absence in deliberate, or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the Court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of bail and proceed against him under law.

The Court also directed the concerned Trial Court to expedite the trial of the aforesaid case. The Bench gave the Trial Court, a period of one year to conclude the same. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

About the Author