Sujit Kumar Das vs State of Bihar

Heard the parties.

This is an application for quashing the order dated 21.12.2018 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kishanganj in S.T. No. 186 of 2018 (arising out of Kishanganj P.S. Case No. 85 of 2018) by which the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner under Section 227 of Cr.P.C has been rejected in most illegal and arbitrary manner without considering the material fact.

The prosecution case is that on 06.02.2018, the informant, namely, Shyam Kumar Jha submitted a written application addressing to the SHO, Kishanganj P.S. alleging therein inter alia that in the morning of 05.02.2018 his brother, namely, Ratan Kumar Jha died due to rail accident and said information was given by him to the police station, thereafter, Post Mortem of the dead body was conducted and after that the dead body was handed over to him. It is further stated that the son and nephew of the deceased resides outside and after waiting for them the dead body of the deceased was cremated on 06.02.2018. After cremation of the dead body the family members of the deceased came at the house and started to make out further program for his death ceremony and other rituals. It is further stated that when the family members started to search out the paper of the deceased, they found the suicide note of the deceased kept in Almirah, which revealed that the Bank Manager of his Branch, namely, Sujit Kumar Das and Sweeper, namely, Rajeev Kumar Jha were responsible for pressurizing him to carry out illegal activity in the Bank and also blackmailing him to cause financial loss to him. Having seen the suicide note of the deceased by informant as well as his family members, they got shocked and said information was provided to the police for taking legal action against both the accused.

On the basis of aforesaid written application, police drew up formal information report and registered a case as Kishanganj P.S. case No. 85 of 2018 for the offence punishable under Section 306 of the IPC.

It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner that the content of the suicide note cannot be said as to constitute the allegation within the meaning of abetment as available under Section 107 of the IPC. It is submitted that the act of petitioner cannot be said so active or direct which forced the deceased to commit the suicide without leaving any other option and in support of his submission learned counsel relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Gurcharan Singh vs. State of Punjab [(2017) 1 SCC 433]. It is submitted that considering all such matter, this petitioner was granted bail by learned trial court itself. It is also pointed out that no forensic examination was done qua suicide note during the investigations and, therefore, it cannot be straightway relied upon. It is also submitted that, in fact, occurrence was a rail accident, which was given a colour of suicide by the family members/informant of the deceased for which, U.D Case was lodged earlier. In view of all such aforesaid fact, the impugned order rejecting the petition of petitioner as preferred under Section 227 of the Cr.PC before the learned trial court is bad in the eyes of law and, therefore, same be set aside/quashed.

Learned APP, Dr. Indiwar Kumari while opposing the aforesaid submissions submitted that learned counsel appearing for petitioner raised certain disputed question of facts which cannot be ascertained at this stage. It is submitted that even a grave suspicion is sufficient to frame the charge and as this petitioner was named in suicide note authored by the deceased himself, same is sufficient to raise grave suspicion as to frame charges against this petitioner. In support of his submission learned APP relied upon the legal report of Hon’ble Supreme Court as available through Sajjan Kumar Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation [(2010) 9 SCC 368].

In view of aforesaid factual submissions, this court is convinced enough that learned counsel for the petitioner is raising certain disputed questions of facts as genuineness of the suicide note in want of forensic report and also the occurrence, whether it was suicide or accident, which certainly cannot be decided in present proceeding.

Accordingly, this court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order.

Hence, the present petition stands dismissed being devoid of any merit.

Let the copy of this judgment be sent to learned trial court forthwith, with TCR, if any.