Mamta Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand

Ravindra Maithani, J

Applicant Mamta Sharma is in judicial custody in FIR No. 05 of 2023, under Section 306 IPC, P.S. Khatima, District Udham Singh Nagar. He has sought his release on bail.

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the record.

According to the FIR, the deceased had lodged an FIR against the son of the applicant under Sections 376, 323, 504 IPC, in which charge sheet had been filed, but the proceedings were stayed on an application filed by the son of the applicant. According to the FIR, after obtaining stay, the applicant and her family members were pressurizing the deceased to withdraw the case, due to which she committed suicide and she left a video as a suicide note.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that there is no evidence that the applicant ever pressurized or abetted the deceased for committing suicide. It is submitted that, in fact, the son of the applicant and the deceased had filed a joint application for their marriage, but the deceased did not turn up; the deceased had been staying with her parents; the applicant never came in touch with the deceased; there is no call detail record as such.

Today, State is not represented. There is none to represent the State.

The factual aspects to certain extent are admitted. The son of the applicant was an accused of the case of rape that was based on an FIR lodged by the deceased. Now, it is being stated by the prosecution that the applicant and her son pressurized the deceased to withdraw the case and she could not bear the pressure.

It is a stage of bail. Much of the discussion is not expected of. The discussion is being made with the caveat that any observation made in this order should not have any bearing at the trial.

The mother of the deceased has stated that the applicant also was pressurizing and threatening the deceased to withdraw the case. There is a suicide note also in terms of video of the deceased, in which she has stated that the applicant and her son have so harassed her that that cannot bear it now and she wants to commit suicide.

It is true that as such no date has been given anywhere as to when the deceased was harassed. The question that would fall for scrutiny would be as to how the deceased was harassed? Perhaps what would be the evidentiary value of the suicide note left by the deceased? The court would also be required to adjudicate as to whether it is a case of abetment, particularly, in view of the law as laid down in the case of Amit Kapoor v. Ramesh Chandra and another, (2012) 9 SCC 460, where the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held “…All cases may not be of direct evidence in regard to instigation having a direct nexus to the suicide. There could be cases where the circumstances created by the accused are such that a person feels totally frustrated and finds it difficult to continue existence.” Is it a case like this?

Having considered, this Court is of the view that it is not a case fit for bail. Accordingly the bail applications deserve to be rejected.

The bail applications are rejected.