The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital, in its order dated July 11, 2024, granted bail to Anil Kumar Gupta and Ajay Kumar Gupta after considering the arguments presented on behalf of the applicants and the relevant case law cited.
The key question of law addressed in the order was: “Can a statutory complaint filed by the accused amount to abetment to suicide?”
The court discussed the issue as follows:
If the applicant Anil Kumar Gupta had given a complaint to police on 20.05.2024 and police did call the deceased, can it be a factor constituting abetment to suicide? Can a statutory complaint amount to abetment?
The court noted that this was an issue that would need to be determined during the investigation or trial, stating: “These and many more questions would find answer during investigation or trial, as the case may be.”
The court although does not provide a definitive answer on this question of law but suggests that a statutory complaint filed by the accused may not necessarily constitute abetment to suicide. The court indicates that this is an issue that requires further examination as the case proceeds however, the accused cannot be kept in custody and must be enlarged on bail.
Key points from the court's order:
1. The court, after providing an opportunity for the complainant to argue and considering the submissions of the state, intensively dealt with the test and yardstick to gauge the factors necessary to consider bail for an offence under Section 306 IPC.
2. The court observed that the deceased and the applicant, Anil Kumar Gupta, were partners in two Limited Liability Partnerships (LLPs), with Anil Kumar Gupta being a sleeping partner and majority shareholder.
3. The court noted that the deceased first sent emails dated May 12 and 13, 2024, requesting funds from Anil Kumar Gupta, which were replied to on May 14 and 15, 2024. This was followed by the deceased filing a caveat in court on May 16, 2024. Upon not receiving any response to the applicant’s email, a further follow-up was also sent to the deceased partner on the intervening night of May 23 and 24, 2024.
4. The applicant had, in the meantime, also preferred a complaint before Saharanpur police anticipating misappropriation of funds and several illegalities committed at the behest of the other partners of the LLP.
5. The court questioned whether the complaint filed by the applicants to the Saharanpur police and the subsequent notice issued to the deceased could constitute abetment to suicide.
6. The court also questioned whether a statutory complaint can amount to abetment and whether the legal notice sent by the applicants on the intervening night of May 23/24, 2024, could be considered a factor for abetment.
7. The court relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Mohit Singhal v. State of UP and Prabhat Kumar Mishra v. State of UP, which established that mere words uttered in anger or emotion without intending the consequences to follow cannot be considered instigation.
The applicants were led by Ms. Pinky Anand, Senior Advocate who was briefed by Abhimanshu Dhyani, Founding Partner and Sahil Modi, Principal Associate from Veritas Aequitas and Ashish Vats, Kartik Bhatnagar and Sarthak Gaur, Advocates.
Additionally, Mr. Lalit Sharma, Mr. Navneet Kaushik, and Mr. Aditya Singh, Advocates, were also briefed by the Veritas Aequitas team.
The state was represented by Ms. Manisha Rana Singh, AGA, and the complainant/informant was represented by Mr. Ekansh Agarwal, Advocate, and Mr. Piyush Garg, Advocate.
