1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant as well as learned A.G.A. for respondent - State.
2.This is an application under Section 438 CrPC in case crime No.85 of 2021 under Section 306 IPC registered at police station Mahanagar, District Lucknow.
3. As per prosecution's case, an allegation of borrowing of Rs.35,00,000/- from complainant's deceased husband and to not return the said money and instigation to suicide has been levelled against the applicant.
4. Learned Counsel for the applicant submitted that the applicant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. The applicant has not committed any offence as alleged in the FIR. He further submitted that the applicant has never opted such a huge loan amounting to Rs.35,00,000/- from the deceased. The applicant used to borrow short amounts from the deceased and regularly paid the interest thereon. Statement of fact in this regard has been made in paragraph-11&12 of the bail application.
5. It has been further submitted that the first information report has been lodged with delay and no explanation in this regard has been furnished, therefore, the prosecution's story is concocted and is only to falsely implicate the applicant. It is also submitted that there is no chance of absconding and tampering with the prosecution witnesses. In case, the applicant is released on anticipatory bail, he shall co-operate with the trial and will appear before the trial court as and when requires and shall also abide by the conditions of bail imposed by this Court. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon a judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami Vs. State of Maharashtra and others; 2021 (1) JIC 250 (SC). Relevant portion of the judgment is being quoted below:
"55. Now in this backdrop, it becomes necessary to advert briefly to the contents of the FIR in the present case. The FIR recites that the spouse of the informant had a company carrying on the business of architecture, interior design and engineering consultancy. According to the informant, her husband was over the previous two years ?having pressure as he did not receive the money of work carried out by him?. The FIR recites that the deceased had called at the office of the appellant and spoken to his accountant for the payment of money. Apart from the above statements, it has been stated that the deceased left behind a suicide note stating that his ?money is stuck and following owners of respective companies are not paying our legitimate dues?. Prima facie, on the application of the test which has been laid down by this Court in a consistent line of authority which has been noted above, it cannot be said that the appellant was guilty of having abetted the suicide within the meaning of Section 306 of the IPC. These observations, we must note, are prima facie at this stage since the High Court is PART I still to take up the petition for quashing. Clearly however, the High Court in failing to notice the contents of the FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role, functions and jurisdiction when seized of a petition under Section 482 of the CrPC. The High Court recited the legal position that the jurisdiction to quash under Section 482 has to be exercised sparingly. These words, however, are not meaningless incantations, but have to be assessed with reference to the contents of the particular FIR before the High Court. If the High Court were to carry out a prima facie evaluation, it would have been impossible for it not to notice the disconnect between the FIR and the provisions of Section 306 of the IPC. The failure of the High Court to do so has led it to adopting a position where it left the appellant to pursue his remedies for regular bail under Section 439. The High Court was clearly in error in failing to perform a duty which is entrusted to it while evaluating a petition under Section 482 albeit at the interim stage."
6. Per contra, learned AGA has opposed the prayer for bail but could not dispute the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the applicant.
7. Without entering into the merits of the case and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, arguments advanced by learned Counsel for the parties and in view of case law cited by learned counsel for the applicant in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami (Supra), I am of the view that it is a fit case for anticipatory bail.
8. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is allowed.
9. In the event of arrest, the applicant Romit Soni shall be released on bail in case crime No.85 of 2021 under Section 306 IPC registered at police station Mahanagar, District Lucknow on his furnishing personal bonds and two reliable sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned with the following conditions:
(a) The applicant shall file an undertaking to the effect that he shall not seek any adjournment on the dates fixed for evidence, if 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 in accordance with law;
(b) 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;
(c). In case, the applicant misuses the liberty of bail and in order to secure his presence proclamation under Section 82 Cr.P.C. is issued and the applicant fail to appear before the Court on the date fixed in such proclamation, then, the trial court shall initiate proceedings against him, in accordance with law, under Section 174-A of the Indian Penal Code.
(d) 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 under Section 313 Cr.P.C. If in the opinion of the trial court default of this condition is deliberate or without sufficient cause, then it shall be open for the trial court to treat such default as abuse of liberty of his bail and proceed against him in accordance with law.
Order Date :- 25.8.2021 Adarsh K Singh