IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, MOGA

B.A NO.__ OF 2022

In Re

Krishneil Von Roy Reddy s/o Shiv Madhri Reddy R/o Manav Nagar,

telephone exchange, Hadiabad, Phagwara City, District Kapurthala.

(Now confined in Central Jail Goindwal Sahib)

……Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ……Respondent

( K.P Bawa ) & (_Maan Akashdeep Singh)

Enrl.No. P/1630/2014 Enrl.No. PH/5698/2020
Advocates
Moga Counsel for the Petitioner

Dated:__.04.22
 First Petition u/s 437 Cr.P.C. for grant of

regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 0058

dated 21.03.2022 under Section 306 IPC P.S.

Dharamkot, District Moga.

Respectfully showeth:-

1. That petitioner has been falsely implicated in case FIR 0058

dated 21.03.2022 under Section 306 IPC P.S. Dharamkot,

District Moga.

2. That there has been an unexplained delay of 11 days in

registration of the FIR suggesting that the present FIR is lodged

by the Complainant as an afterthought and the petitioner has no

concern with the alleged incident.

3. That from the perusal of the contents of FIR it becomes crystal

clear that there exists no proximate and live link between the

alleged incident of Petitioner defrauding the deceased and the

subsequent suicide as the two alleged incidents occurred two

years apart ; 2019 and 10.02.2022 respectively.

4. That the present FIR against the petitioner is a mere bundle of

lies filed with an ulterior motive to settle scores with the

petitioner.

5. That it is pertinent to mention that no communication

whatsoever took place between the petitioner and the deceased

before the alleged occurrence.

6. That it is vital to mention as per the averments made in the

present FIR , the alleged suicide note was submitted to the

police by the complainant herself after retrieving it from the

motorcycle of the deceased after 11 days of the alleged suicide

of the deceased whereas there is nothing on the record to show

that how and from where the complainant retrieved the said

suicide note and from where the said motorcycle of the deceased

was at the time of said recovery made by the complainant

herself. Hence it would not be out of place to mention that the

authenticity of the alleged suicide note cannot be taken on its

face value.

7. That as per the averments made in the present FIR the

complainant herself admits the fact that the deceased was of

unstable mental state hence it is highly probable that he was in

sensitive and aggravated mental state and was not in a position

to act like a reasonable man.

The Apex Court in the case of GEO VARGHESE V. STATE OF

RAJASTHAN & ANR CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1164 OF 2021(Arising

out of S.L.P (Crl.) No. 4512 OF 2019) observed that “…22. What is

required to constitute an alleged abetment of suicide under Section 306

IPC is there must be an allegation of either direct or indirect act of

incitement to the commission of offence of suicide and mere allegations of

harassment of the deceased by another person would not be sufficient in

itself, unless, there are allegations of such actions on the part of the

accused which compelled the commission of suicide. Further, if the person

committing suicide is hypersensitive and the allegations attributed to the

 accused is otherwise not ordinarily expected to induce a similarly situated

person to take the extreme step of committing suicide, it would be unsafe to

hold the accused guilty of abetment of suicide. Thus, what is required is an

examination of every case on its own facts and circumstances and keeping

in consideration the surrounding circumstances as well, which may have

bearing on the alleged action of the accused and the psyche of the

deceased...”

8. That there has been no positive act on the part of the petitioner

to instigate or aid the in the alleged suicide of the deceased.

There has been nothing on the record to show that the petitioner

had any intention to instigate the deceased to take such extreme

step of committing suicide.

9. That prima-facie, no case is made out under section 306 IPC

against the petitioner as there was no direct or indirect

instigation provided by the petitioner and it is further submitted

that no communication of any form whatsoever took place

between the petitioner and the deceased before the alleged

occurrence hence the petitioner has no role whatsoever in the

present FIR. In M. Mohan v. State, AIR 2011 SC 1238. It was

held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that;

“45. Abetment involves a mental process of instigating a person or

intentionally aiding a person in doing of a thing. Without a positive act on
the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction
cannot be sustained.
46. The intention of the Legislature and the ratio of the cases decided by
this court are clear that in order to convict a person under section 306 IPC
there has to be a clear mens rea to commit the offence. It also requires an
active act or direct act which led the deceased to commit suicide seeing no
option and this act must have been intended to push the deceased into such
a position that he/she committed suicide. ”
10. That it is pertinent to mention that in the present FIR no

ingredients of an offence under section 306 IPC are present.

Section 306 of the IPC is reproduced hereunder:-

"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."
Section 107 of the IPC reads as under:-
"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."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Gurcharan Singh vs State of

Punjab, 2017(1) RCR (Criminal) 118, held that: “22. It is thus
manifest that the offence punishable is one of abetment of the
commission of suicide by any person, predicating existence of a live link or
nexus between the two, abetment being the propelling causative factor. The
basic ingredients of this provision are suicidal death and the abetment
thereof. To constitute abetment, the intention and involvement of the
accused to aid or instigate the commission of suicide is imperative. Any
severance or absence of any of this constituents would militate against this
indictment. Remoteness of the culpable acts or omissions rooted in the
intention of the accused to actualize the suicide would fall short as well of
the offence of abetment essential to attract the punitive mandate of Section
306 I.P.C. Contiguity, continuity, culpability and complicity of the
indictable acts or omission are the concomitant indices of abetment.
Section 306 I.P.C., thus criminalises the sustained incitement for suicide.”

11.That, it is pertinent to mention that nothing is to be recovered

from the petitioner and the trial of the case is likely to take time

hence no useful purpose will be served by keeping Petitioner

Applicant/Accused in custody.

12.That the Applicant/Accused undertakes to not tamper or hamper

with the prosecution’s evidence in any manner.

13.That the Applicant undertakes to abide by all the terms and

conditions imposed by this Hon’ble Court.

14.That, applicant/ Accused has not filed any other similar bail

application before any other court.

IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT:-

The Applicant/Accused be released on bail in FIR No.

0058 dated 21.03.2022 under Section 306 IPC P.S. Dharamkot,

District Moga. And Pass any other just and equitable orders in

the interest of justice, equity and good conscience may kindly be

passed.

PLACE

( K.P Bawa ) & (_Maan Akashdeep Singh)

Enrl.No. P/1630/2014 Enrl.No. PH/5698/2020