{"id":1842,"date":"2024-05-03T17:01:26","date_gmt":"2024-05-03T11:31:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=1842"},"modified":"2024-05-03T17:01:26","modified_gmt":"2024-05-03T11:31:26","slug":"delhi-hc-holds-that-if-a-lover-commits-suicide-due-to-love-failure-lady-cannot-be-held-for-abetment-of-suicide","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/delhi-hc-holds-that-if-a-lover-commits-suicide-due-to-love-failure-lady-cannot-be-held-for-abetment-of-suicide\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi HC holds that if A Lover Commits Suicide Due To Love Failure, Lady Cannot Be Held For Abetment Of Suicide"},"content":{"rendered":"

AARUSHI GUPTA\u00a0 [<\/strong> Applicant] Vs. <\/strong>STATE GNCT OF DELHI\u00a0 \u00a0[<\/strong> Respondent]<\/h1>\n

BAIL APPLN. 2543\/2023 & CRL.M.A. 30106\/2023<\/p>\n

(CORAM HON\u2019BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Facts:<\/u><\/strong> The present applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.294\/2023, dated 06.05.2023, for offence under Section 306of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Vivek Vihar.<\/p>\n

Issue:<\/u><\/strong> Whether the present application is maintainable or not?<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for applicant:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that she has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submitted that the suicide note left by the deceased thereby mentioning the name of the present applicants, and except the name given in the suicide note there is nothing to show that he was prompted, forced & instigated by these persons to commit suicide. He submitted one Paras from whom the deceased had monetary transaction and one another girl namely Swati Basra have also been mentioned as responsible for the deceased committing suicide, which shows that the complainant got the FIR registered without any basis. He submitted that applicant came into contact with the deceased a long back, but due to the conduct and harassment caused by the deceased, the applicant broke-up the friendship sometime back.<\/p>\n

Arguments on behalf of counsel for respondent:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n

The learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed that the grant of bail to the applicants. He submitted that the offence committed by the applicants is heinous in nature and the names of both the applicants were written in suicide note, because of whom the deceased committed suicide. He submitted that during the course of investigation various CDR details were also obtained from which it was revealed that the deceased had called his parents and had reached Sector 29 Gurugram at around 04:28 a.m. where the applicants were already present. The CCTV footage was also obtained in which the deceased and the applicant Rishabh can be seen in a scuffle.<\/p>\n

Held:<\/u><\/strong> The court allowed the present application and held that, \u201cThe allegation with respect to applicants teasing the deceased in regards to the failure of his romantic relationship with the applicant\u2013 Aarushi Gupta, however, does not appear to be instigation which would amount to abetment of suicide in terms of Section 306 IPC. The factum of the alleged suicide note and whether there was any instigation by the applicants will be seen in trial. Prima facie, the alleged suicide note only expressed a state of anguish of the deceased towards the applicants, but it cannot be inferred that the applicants had any intention, that led the deceased to commit suicide.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

AARUSHI GUPTA\u00a0 [ Applicant] Vs. STATE GNCT OF DELHI\u00a0 \u00a0[ Respondent] BAIL APPLN. 2543\/2023 & CRL.M.A. 30106\/2023 (CORAM HON\u2019BLE MR JUSTICE AMIT MAHAJAN)   Facts: The present applications are filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.294\/2023, dated 06.05.2023, for offence under Section 306of […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1844,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1842","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1842","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1842"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1842\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1845,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1842\/revisions\/1845"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/1844"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1842"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1842"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1842"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}