Gujarat High Court: A.S. Supehia, J., addressed a bail application revolving around a matter concerning a 20-page suicide note.
Instant application was filed to seek bail in connection with FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 306, 465, 477, 120B and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860.
It was submitted that First Informant was a follower of Khodiyar Dham Ashram and the same was being run by Jayramdas Bapu. It was alleged that on 01-06-2021 he received a call that something happened to Jayramdas Bapu and on reaching the ashram it was noticed that he passed away.
It was alleged that a suicide note by Jayramdas Bapu was found from his room containing 20 pages in which deceased named three accused. It was stated in the note that the accused people caused mental and physical torture to bapu and had recorded the videos of bapu in compromising conditions with some ladies due to which bapu committed suicide.
Further, it was alleged that the death certificate certifying that the deceased passed away of natural death i.e. cardiac arrest with incorrect time of death issued by one Dr Kamlesh Kareliya of Dev Covid Care Center, was in fact issued at the behest of the applicant.
The role, which is sought to be alleged and played by the applicant, is that when he examined the dead body of the deceased, the applicant being a doctor, did not prescribe for the postmortem of the deceased and by issuing such certificate, he had tried to save or shield the main accused.
High Court while granting the bail to the applicant considered following:
(a) The role attributed to the applicants;
(b) The applicant is not named in the F.I.R.;
(c) The applicant is a doctor, who was treating the deceased since last several years;
(d) Prima facie, the F.I.R. reveals that there is no monetary ill-gain by the applicant;
(e) Prima facie, the ingredients of Sections 306, 107 as well as 465 of the IPC are not established in the case of the applicant;
(f) The suicide note, which is left by the deceased does not implicate the applicant in any manner and there are no allegations leveled against the applicant in this regard in the F.I.R.;
(g) Considering the facts of the case, the custodial interrogation of the applicant at this stage is not necessary.
Bench relied upon the following Supreme Court cases:
Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2020) 5 SCC 1 and
Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra, (2011) 1 SCC 694
In view of the above, the present application was allowed.[Nilesh Gopalbhai Nimavat v. State of Gujarat, 2021 SCC OnLine Guj 1056, decided on 16-07-2021]
Advocates before the Court:
MR YOGESH LAKHANI, SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH MR APURVA R KAPADIA(5012) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR MITESH AMIN, PUBLIC PROSECUTOR WITH MR HIMANSHU K PATEL, APP for the Respondent(s) No. 1
