Allahabad High Court: In a Transit Anticipatory Bail Application at the instance of the Wife (Nikita Singhania), Mother-in-Law, Brother-in-Law and Uncle-in-Law of the deceased for offences under Sections 108, 3(5) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita for a period of six weeks on such condition as may be imposed by this Court Ashutosh Srivastava,J. Granted 4 week transit anticipatory bail to the accused 4, and said that there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the accused to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the case is registered.
Background:
An FIR was filed under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS on 09-12-2024 by the brother of the deceased, Atul Subhash. The FIR alleges that the accused persons colluded and filed false cases against Atul Subhash, pressuring him to pay Rs. 3 Crores for settling these cases. Additionally, they demanded Rs. 30 Lacs from him to allow him to see his 4-year-old son. The mother of the wife was accused of pressuring her son-in-law (the deceased) to pay Rs. 30 Lacs to see his son and mocked him by stating that he must either pay Rs. 3 Crores or face death by suicide. As a result of the severe mental and physical distress caused by the accused persons, the brother of the first informant committed suicide.
It has been submitted that accused 1,2,3 have already been arrested, and there is a reasonable apprehension that accused 4, the uncle-in-law of the deceased, will also be arrested.
It has been argued that the arrests were made based on an alleged suicide note and a video that has gone viral on the internet, subjecting accused 4 to a media trial of the highest level. It is contended that he is an elderly person, 69 years of age, with a chronic medical condition that has virtually incapacitated him, and therefore, there is no question of him having abetted the suicide of Atul Subhash.
Further, it has been argued that there is a distinction between abetment and harassment. If the suicide note is taken at face value, the allegations would, at most, be construed as harassment related to implicating the deceased in false cases and extracting large sums of money. In any event, the offence under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS cannot be said to be made out against accused 4.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court noted that the allegations for instigating suicide have been raised primarily against the Reeta Kaushik, Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, Mother-in-Law of the deceased, Wife of the deceased , and so far, as the accused 4 is concerned, the allegations appear to be limited to extending threats to the deceased and his parents over the phone and in person for beating up, killing them and filing false case.
In view of the law enunciated by the Supreme Court, the Court said that there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the accused 4 to approach the Courts including High Courts where the offence is alleged to have been committed, and the case is registered. There is no doubt that the right to liberty is enshrined in Part-III of the Constitution of India and such rights cannot be impinged except by following procedure established by law.
Also read: Transit Bail — Statutory Right or Judicial Innovation?
The Court opined that the accused 4 is entitled to get the privilege of pre-arrest Transit Anticipatory Bail, as denying anticipatory bail or interim protection to enable him to make an application under Section 438 CrPC before a Court of Competent Jurisdiction would result in irremediable and irreversible prejudices in the facts and circumstances that stand attracted to the case of the accused 4.
Thus, the Court directed that in the event of the arrest of accused 4 for offences under Sections 108 and 3(5) of the BNS he shall be released on Transit Anticipatory Bail in the aforesaid case until the submission of the police report, if any, under Section 173(2) CrPC. The release was granted on the condition of furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 50,000/- with two sureties, each in the like amount, to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned, subject to the following conditions:
-
The accused shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required.
-
He shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat, or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any Police Officer.
-
He shall not leave India without prior permission from the Court, and if he possesses a passport, it shall be deposited with the S.S.P./S.P. concerned.
The Court clarified that this protection is being granted for a period of four weeks from the date of this order to enable accused 4 to approach the competent Court to obtain appropriate relief.
[Nikita Singhania v. State of UP, Criminal Misc. Anticipatory Bail Application under Section 482 BNSS No. 12087 of 2024, decided on 16-12-2024]
