The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Sushil Singhania, the uncle of Nikita Singhania, accused in the suicide of Artificial Intelligence engineer Atul Subhash.
A Single Bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Nikita Singhania And 3 Others.
The (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application at the instance of the applicants, who are wife of the deceased, mother-in-law of the deceased, brother-in-law of the deceased and uncle-in-law of the deceased has been filed with the prayer for allowing the application and grant (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application to the applicants in Case under Section 108, 3(5) of the BNS, Police Station Marathahalli, District Bengaluru City, State of Karnataka, for a period of six weeks on such condition as may be imposed by the Court.
Manish Tiwary, Senior Counsel submitted that the Applicant Nos 1, 2 & 3, who are the wife, mother-in-law and brother-in-Law of the deceased, have already been arrested by the Police of the Bengaluru City and the application of grant of (Transit) Anticipatory Bail on their behalf has been rendered incompetent. The (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application is being pressed on behalf of the Applicant No 4, Sushil Singhania, son of Banwari Lal Singhania, alone.
An FIR giving rise to the Case at Police Station Marathahalli, District Bengaluru City, State of Karnataka, under Sections 108, 3(5) of the BNS was lodged on 09.12.2024 by the first informant Bikas Kumar, son of Pawan Kumar Modi, who happens to be the brother of the deceased, Atul Subhash, with the allegation that the applicants have colluded and filed false cases against the brother of the first informant namely Atul Subhash and were pressurizing him to part with Rs 3 crores for the settlement for the said cases and demanded Rs 30 lakh to see his 4-year-old son.
The Applicant No 2, Nisha Singhania is alleged to have pressurized her son-in-law (the deceased) to part with a sum of Rs 30 lakh to see his son and mocked the brother of the first informant to either part with Rs 3 crores or die by committing suicide. The brother of the first informant was mentally and physically disturbed and on account of the harassment meted out to him at the instance of the applicants committed suicide.
Senior Counsel has already submitted that the Applicant Nos 1, 2 & 3 have been arrested and there is a reasonable apprehension of the Applicant No 4, Sushil Singhania, the uncle-in-law of the deceased, may be arrested also.
It has been argued that the arrest have been made on the basis of alleged suicide note and a video which have gone viral over the internet and the Applicant No 4 is facing the media trial of the highest level.
It has been argued that the Applicant No 4 is an elderly person 69 years of age and has a chronic medical condition and virtually incapacitated and there is no question of abetting the suicide by the brother of the first informant.
It has also been argued that there is a distinction between the abetment and harassment and if the suicide note is taken on its face value the allegations leveled at most would be taken to be harassment for implicating the deceased in false cases and extracting huge sums of money. In any case, the offence under Section 108, 3(5) of the BNS cannot be said to be made out.
It has also been argued that the Applicant No 4 be granted protection for reasonable time so that he is in a position to place his version before the Court and the authorities concerned and take recourse to remedy available to him under the law before the Court in the State of Karnataka wherefrom the FIR emanates. Prayer for granting (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application has, accordingly, been made.
The Court observed that,
Prima-facie, having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, particularly, the suicide note, which has been brought on record as to the affidavit filed in support of the Transit Anticipatory Bail Application, I find that the allegations for instigating suicide has been raised primarily against the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, Smt. Reeta Kaushik, mother-in-law of the deceased namely Smt. Nisha Singhania, wife of the deceased namely Smt Nikita Singhania, and so far as the Applicant No 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 cases.
In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the Applicant No 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-I1I of the Constitution of India and such rights cannot be impinged except by following procedure established by law.
Considering the above, the Court opined that the Applicant No 4 is entitled to get the privilege of pre-arrest (Transit) Anticipatory Bail. Denying (Transit) Anticipatory Bail or interim protection to enable the Applicant No 4 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 Applicant No 4.
Accordingly, the court directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant No 4, in connection with the Case under Section 108, 3(5) of the BNS, Police Station Marathahalli, District Bengaluru City, State of Karnataka, he shall be released on (Transit) Anticipatory Bail on on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) CrPC, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned. with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has a passport, the same shall be deposited by him, before the SSP/SP concerned.
The post appeared first on .
A Single Bench of Justice Ashutosh Srivastava passed this order while hearing a Criminal Misc Anticipatory Bail Application filed by Nikita Singhania And 3 Others.
The (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application at the instance of the applicants, who are wife of the deceased, mother-in-law of the deceased, brother-in-law of the deceased and uncle-in-law of the deceased has been filed with the prayer for allowing the application and grant (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application to the applicants in Case under Section 108, 3(5) of the BNS, Police Station Marathahalli, District Bengaluru City, State of Karnataka, for a period of six weeks on such condition as may be imposed by the Court.
Manish Tiwary, Senior Counsel submitted that the Applicant Nos 1, 2 & 3, who are the wife, mother-in-law and brother-in-Law of the deceased, have already been arrested by the Police of the Bengaluru City and the application of grant of (Transit) Anticipatory Bail on their behalf has been rendered incompetent. The (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application is being pressed on behalf of the Applicant No 4, Sushil Singhania, son of Banwari Lal Singhania, alone.
An FIR giving rise to the Case at Police Station Marathahalli, District Bengaluru City, State of Karnataka, under Sections 108, 3(5) of the BNS was lodged on 09.12.2024 by the first informant Bikas Kumar, son of Pawan Kumar Modi, who happens to be the brother of the deceased, Atul Subhash, with the allegation that the applicants have colluded and filed false cases against the brother of the first informant namely Atul Subhash and were pressurizing him to part with Rs 3 crores for the settlement for the said cases and demanded Rs 30 lakh to see his 4-year-old son.
The Applicant No 2, Nisha Singhania is alleged to have pressurized her son-in-law (the deceased) to part with a sum of Rs 30 lakh to see his son and mocked the brother of the first informant to either part with Rs 3 crores or die by committing suicide. The brother of the first informant was mentally and physically disturbed and on account of the harassment meted out to him at the instance of the applicants committed suicide.
Senior Counsel has already submitted that the Applicant Nos 1, 2 & 3 have been arrested and there is a reasonable apprehension of the Applicant No 4, Sushil Singhania, the uncle-in-law of the deceased, may be arrested also.
It has been argued that the arrest have been made on the basis of alleged suicide note and a video which have gone viral over the internet and the Applicant No 4 is facing the media trial of the highest level.
It has been argued that the Applicant No 4 is an elderly person 69 years of age and has a chronic medical condition and virtually incapacitated and there is no question of abetting the suicide by the brother of the first informant.
It has also been argued that there is a distinction between the abetment and harassment and if the suicide note is taken on its face value the allegations leveled at most would be taken to be harassment for implicating the deceased in false cases and extracting huge sums of money. In any case, the offence under Section 108, 3(5) of the BNS cannot be said to be made out.
It has also been argued that the Applicant No 4 be granted protection for reasonable time so that he is in a position to place his version before the Court and the authorities concerned and take recourse to remedy available to him under the law before the Court in the State of Karnataka wherefrom the FIR emanates. Prayer for granting (Transit) Anticipatory Bail Application has, accordingly, been made.
The Court observed that,
Prima-facie, having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the record, particularly, the suicide note, which has been brought on record as to the affidavit filed in support of the Transit Anticipatory Bail Application, I find that the allegations for instigating suicide has been raised primarily against the Principal Judge, Family Court, Jaunpur, Smt. Reeta Kaushik, mother-in-law of the deceased namely Smt. Nisha Singhania, wife of the deceased namely Smt Nikita Singhania, and so far as the Applicant No 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 cases.
In view of the law enunciated by the Apex Court, there is no fetter on the part of the High Court in granting a transit anticipatory bail to enable the Applicant No 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-I1I of the Constitution of India and such rights cannot be impinged except by following procedure established by law.
Considering the above, the Court opined that the Applicant No 4 is entitled to get the privilege of pre-arrest (Transit) Anticipatory Bail. Denying (Transit) Anticipatory Bail or interim protection to enable the Applicant No 4 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 Applicant No 4.
Accordingly, the court directed that in the event of arrest of the Applicant No 4, in connection with the Case under Section 108, 3(5) of the BNS, Police Station Marathahalli, District Bengaluru City, State of Karnataka, he shall be released on (Transit) Anticipatory Bail on on anticipatory bail in the aforesaid case crime till the submission of police report, if any, under Section 173 (2) CrPC, on furnishing a personal bond of Rs 50,000/- with two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Magistrate/Court concerned. with the following conditions:-
(i) The applicant shall make himself available for interrogation by a Police Officer as and when required;
(ii) The applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) The applicant shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court and if he has a passport, the same shall be deposited by him, before the SSP/SP concerned.
The post appeared first on .