#IPC_306

Описание: #agrim_jamant_IPC_306
#anticipatorybail
#ipc_306
#mphighcourt
#jabalpur

Brief facts of this case emerges as such, the first informant is the
wife of the deceased, who lodged the instant FIR against the present
applicant and other co-accused persons on 06.09.2016 with the allegation
that on 04.09.2016 her husband namely, Ranjeet Jha committed suicide on
account of hanging thereupon 100 number was dialled. The police party
reached the spot and took down the dead body of her husband from
ceiling fan and all the things which were possessed by the deceased was
taken over by the police along with original suicide note. The xeroxcopy
of the suicide note is annexed with written report dated 06.09.2016. Thus
FIR of this case was lodged under Section 306 IPC. Before lodging of this
FIR, information of the incident was given by father of the deceased

2
Ramu Jha on 04.09.2016 to Police Station Sahibabad that his son Ranjeet,
who was working as Electrician in L.R. College, committed suicide by
hanging from ceiling fan. On the basis of this information, police reached
the spot and dead body was removed from the fan and inquest
proceedings started on 04.09.2016 and the same was completed at 9:30
p.m. on 04.09.2016.
4

either description for a term which may extent to
ten years, and shall also be liable to fine."
37. The word 'suicide' in itself is nowhere defined in
the Penal Code, however, its meaning and import is well
known and requires no explanation. `Sui' means `self' and
`cide' means `killing', thus implying an act of self-killing.
In short, a person committing suicide must commit it by
himself, irrespective of the means employed by him in
achieving his object of killing himself.
38. In our country, while suicide itself is not an offence
considering that the successful offender is beyond the
reach of law, attempt to suicide is an offence under
section 309 of I.P.C.
39. “Abetment of a thing” has been defined under
section 107 of the Code. We deem it appropriate to
reproduce section 107, which 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 aides, by any act or illegal








Explanation 2 which has been inserted along with
section 107 reads as under:
"Explanation 2 - Whoever, either prior to or at the
time of the commission of an act, does anything in
order to facilitate the commission of that act, and
thereby facilitates the commission thereof, is said
to aid the doing of that act."



5
as the alleged suicide note could not be compared with the original
handwriting of the deceased. Therefore, the xeroxcopy of suicide note is
fake and fabricated just only to falsely implicate the applicant. The
applicant is the Principal of L.R.P.G. College. Neither direct nor
circumstantial evidence of abetment of suicide to deceased is available
against the applicant. Just only to harass and extract the money from the
applicant this false case has been registered against him. In pursuance of
impugned summoning order in complaint case, the applicant approached
before the sessions court for seeking anticipatory bail, which was rejected
on 28.06.2022 then he immediately approached this Court on 16.08.2022
by means of instant anticipatory bail application. During intervening
period, coercive measure was taken against the applicant, therefore, there
is apprehension of his arrest. Further during investigation, the applicant
fully cooperated, therefore no need of custodial interrogation of the
applicant, hence, the applicant may be enlarged on anticipatory bail till
conclusion of trial and he is ready to cooperate with the trial. If the
applicant is granted anticipatory bail, he will never misuse the same. Now
the applicant is a retired Principal aged about 63 years old.

implication. Therefore, prima facie, case is made out against the applicant.
Thus the instant anticipatory bail application is liable to be rejected.
8. It may be stated that in case of Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v.
State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694, it has been held by Hon'ble
Supreme Court that while deciding anticipatory bail, Court must consider
nature and gravity of accusation, antecedent of accused, possibility of
accused to flee from justice and that Court must evaluate entire available
material against the accused carefully and that the exact role of the
accused has also to be taken into consideration.