Author Advocate Paresh M Modi

Famous 10 Judgments on IPC 306 / BNS 108 Useful for Anticipatory Bail – By Advocate Paresh M Modi

1️⃣ M. Mohan vs State (2011) 3 SCC 626

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • Direct mens rea and active instigation must be proved.

  • Mere harassment or normal disputes are not enough.

📌 Anticipatory Bail Note:
Courts rely heavily on this case to argue that FIR lacks proximate cause or intent, hence custodial interrogation unnecessary.

2️⃣ Gurcharan Singh vs State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • There must be a live link between conduct and suicide.

  • Hypersensitivity of deceased is relevant factor.

📌 Bail Strategy:
If suicide note contains general allegations, this judgment supports anticipatory bail.

3️⃣ S.S. Chheena vs Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • Abetment requires positive act of instigation.

  • Without intentional aid, offence under 306 fails.

📌 Anticipatory Bail Point:
Use when FIR alleges emotional pressure but no overt act.

4️⃣ Mahendra Awase vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2025 SC)

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • SC warned against casual use of Section 306.

  • Harassment alone is insufficient to constitute abetment.

📌 Anticipatory Bail Value:
Strong precedent to argue false implication after suicide.

5️⃣ Mamta Kaur vs State of Punjab (2025 SC)

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Outcome:
Anticipatory bail granted under IPC 306 because:

  • Accused cooperated with investigation.

  • No custodial interrogation required.

📌 Practical Ratio:
If investigation complete or cooperation shown → AB likely.

6️⃣ Ude Singh vs State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • Continuous harassment may amount to abetment only when intention clearly proved.

📌 Bail Argument:
If harassment allegations vague → anticipatory bail justified.

7️⃣ Geo Varghese vs State of Rajasthan (2021) SC

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • Teacher accused of abetment discharged.

  • Court held ordinary scolding cannot be treated as instigation.

📌 Anticipatory Bail Use:
Apply where FIR based on emotional allegations or pressure narratives.

8️⃣ Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs State of Maharashtra (2020)

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • Liberty is paramount; arrest should not be mechanical in 306 cases.

  • Courts must scrutinize FIR carefully.

📌 Bail Note:
Widely cited to argue pre-trial arrest is misuse.

9️⃣ Madan Mohan Singh vs State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • Suicide note blaming superior officer not enough unless instigation proved.

📌 Anticipatory Bail Value:
Helpful when only suicide note exists without independent evidence.

🔟 Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State (NCT of Delhi) (2009) 16 SCC 605

Court: Supreme Court

✅ Key Ratio:

  • Meaning of “instigation” explained.

  • Words spoken in anger do not automatically amount to abetment.

📌 Bail Strategy:
Use where FIR based on quarrel or verbal dispute.

Table of 10 Famous Judgement for BNS-108 (IPC-306) cases for Anticipatory Bail with Reference website names

CaseCourt & Citation AccuracyKey Ratio VerifiedBail Relevance
1️⃣ M. Mohan vs StateSupreme Court, (2011) 3 SCC 626 elegalix.allahabadhighcourt+1Abetment requires mental process of instigating or aiding with mens rea; mere harassment insufficient elegalix.allahabadhighcourt+1.Supports arguing lack of direct intent or proximate cause in FIRs scconline​.
2️⃣ Gurcharan Singh vs State of PunjabSupreme Court, 2017 (not exactly 1 SCC 433; ABC 2017(I)) judgmentwindow+1No abetment without instigation or mens rea; live link to suicide needed; hypersensitivity relevant lawbhoomi+1.General allegations (e.g., suicide notes) favor anticipatory bail lawbhoomi​.
3️⃣ S.S. Chheena vs Vijay Kumar MahajanSupreme Court, (2010) 12 SCC 190 lawrato+1Positive act of instigation required; no mens rea or aid means no Section 306 offence lawrato+1.Applies to FIRs alleging pressure without overt acts lawlens​.
4️⃣ Mahendra Awase vs State of Madhya PradeshSupreme Court, 2025 INSC 76 / SCC OnLine SC 107 testbook+1Harassment alone insufficient; needs direct instigation and mens rea; quashed charges testbook​.Strong for false implication claims post-suicide testbook​.
5️⃣ Mamta Kaur vs State of PunjabSupreme Court, 2025 INSC 49 lawtext+1Anticipatory bail granted due to cooperation and no need for custodial interrogation legalcell​.Precedent if accused cooperates and probe complete legalcell​.
6️⃣ Ude Singh vs State of HaryanaSupreme Court, (2019) 17 SCC 301 lawrato+1Continuous harassment abets only if intention proved via proximate acts destroying self-esteem scribd+1.Vague allegations justify anticipatory bail scconline​.
7️⃣ Geo Varghese vs State of RajasthanSupreme Court, 2021 lawrato+1Continuous harassment/scolding insufficient without intent; scrutinized FIR allegations lawrato​.Useful for emotional pressure without direct instigation shadesofknife​.
8️⃣ Arnab Manoranjan Goswami vs State of MaharashtraSupreme Court, 2020 SCC OnLine SC 964 thelaweasy​Liberty paramount; no mechanical arrests in Section 306; scrutinize FIR for ingredients thelaweasy+1.Cited against pre-trial arrests as misuse bharatchugh​.
9️⃣ Madan Mohan Singh vs State of GujaratSupreme Court, (2010) 8 SCC 628 ipleaders+1Suicide note blaming accused insufficient without proved instigation shoneekapoor​.Aids when only note exists, no independent evidence shoneekapoor​.
🔟 Chitresh Kumar Chopra vs State (NCT of Delhi)Supreme Court, (2009) 16 SCC 605 advocatetanmoy​Instigation needs mens rea; words in anger/quarrel not abetment advocatetanmoy​.Fits FIRs based on verbal disputes advocatetanmoy​.

🧾 Practical Legal Principles Emerging for Anticipatory Bail in IPC 306

From above judgments, courts generally consider:

✔ No direct instigation or intentional aid
✔ Absence of mens rea
✔ General allegations or emotional disputes
✔ Delay in FIR or improvement in statements
✔ Cooperation with investigation
✔ No need for custodial interrogation

If these exist, anticipatory bail chances become strong.

Important Information and Arguments with Judgements

PART-1 — Top Supreme Court Judgments for Anticipatory Bail in IPC 306

These cases are repeatedly relied upon to show absence of instigation, mens rea, or proximate cause.

🔹 A. Core Judgments on “No Instigation / Mens Rea”

  1. M. Mohan v. State (2011) 3 SCC 626
    → Instigation must be active and intentional.

  2. S.S. Chheena v. Vijay Kumar Mahajan (2010) 12 SCC 190
    → Mere harassment ≠ abetment.

  3. Chitresh Kumar Chopra v. State (2009) 16 SCC 605
    → Instigation means provoking or inciting; casual words insufficient.

  4. Geo Varghese v. State of Rajasthan (2021 SC)
    → Ordinary reprimand or pressure not equal to abetment.

  5. Madan Mohan Singh v. State of Gujarat (2010) 8 SCC 628
    → Suicide note alone not conclusive proof.

🔹 B. Judgments Supporting Bail Where Allegations Are General

  1. Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab (2017) 1 SCC 433
    → Hypersensitivity of deceased relevant.

  2. Ude Singh v. State of Haryana (2019) 17 SCC 301
    → Continuous harassment must show clear intent.

  3. Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar v. State of M.P. (2002) 5 SCC 371
    → Saying “go and die” not abetment.

  4. Netai Dutta v. State of W.B. (2005) 2 SCC 659
    → Absence of specific allegation leads to quashing/bail.

  5. Amalendu Pal v. State of West Bengal (2010) 1 SCC 707
    → Proximity test between act and suicide.

🔹 C. Liberty-Oriented Judgments Helpful in Anticipatory Bail

  1. Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra (2020 SC)
    → Courts must prevent misuse of criminal law.

  2. Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) 8 SCC 273
    → Arrest should not be mechanical; apply to 306 allegations.

  3. Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 1 SCC 694
    → Landmark anticipatory bail principles.

  4. Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT Delhi) (2020) 5 SCC 1
    → Anticipatory bail can continue till trial.

🔹 D. Recent Supreme Court Trend (Misuse of IPC 306)

  1. Mahendra Awase v. State of MP (2025 SC)
    → Casual implication under 306 discouraged.

  2. Mamta Kaur v. State of Punjab (2025 SC)
    → Cooperation + lack of custodial necessity → AB granted.

  3. Praveen Pradhan v. State of Uttaranchal (2012) 9 SCC 734
    → Workplace disputes rarely amount to abetment.

  4. Rajesh v. State of Haryana (2019 SC)
    → Ordinary matrimonial discord insufficient.

  5. Gangula Mohan Reddy v. State of A.P. (2010) 1 SCC 750
    → Financial disputes alone not abetment.

  6. Randhir Singh v. State of Punjab (2004) 13 SCC 129
    → Direct evidence of instigation required.

PART-2 — Gujarat High Court & Important High Court Principles

These are commonly cited patterns seen in Gujarat HC anticipatory bail orders in 306 IPC:

✔️ Gujarat High Court Observations (General Trends)

  • If FIR contains omnibus allegations, AB is granted.

  • Suicide note naming accused without specific overt act → bail favourable.

  • Delay in FIR or family dispute angle → custodial interrogation not required.

  • Financial or property disputes often treated as civil disputes, not abetment.

🔹 Useful High Court Authorities (Widely Relied On)

  1. Bhagwan Das v. Kartar Singh (SC principle applied by Gujarat HC)

  2. Ramesh Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618

  3. Rajeshbhai Patel line of Gujarat HC AB orders (general harassment cases)

  4. Teacher/student suicide cases — reliance on Geo Varghese judgment

(Note: Gujarat HC anticipatory bail orders are fact-specific; advocates usually rely on SC ratio rather than individual HC citations.)

PART-3 — Court-Ready Anticipatory Bail Argument Structure (IPC 306)

🧾 1. Ingredients of Section 306 Not Made Out

  • No instigation, no intentional aid, no mens rea

  • Cite: M. Mohan, S.S. Chheena, Chitresh Kumar Chopra

🧾 2. Lack of Proximity / Live Link

  • FIR lacks immediate provocation before suicide

  • Cite: Amalendu Pal, Gurcharan Singh

🧾 3. Suicide Note or Allegations Are General

  • No specific overt act attributed

  • Cite: Madan Mohan Singh, Netai Dutta

🧾 4. Nature of Dispute is Civil / Personal

  • Financial or family dispute exaggerated into 306

  • Cite: Gangula Mohan Reddy, Ude Singh

🧾 5. Custodial Interrogation Not Required

  • Accused cooperated; evidence documentary

  • Cite: Siddharam Mhetre, Mamta Kaur

🧾 6. Liberty & Misuse Argument

  • Arrest will be punitive

  • Cite: Arnab Goswami, Arnesh Kumar

Practical Litigation Tip (Very Important)

In Gujarat practice, anticipatory bail in 306 IPC becomes strong when:

✔ FIR lacks specific instigation words/actions
✔ Suicide occurred long after alleged incident
✔ Only WhatsApp chats or emotional disputes alleged
✔ Accused has no criminal antecedents
✔ Investigation mostly documentary

નીચે IPC 306 (આત્મહત્યામાં પ્રેરણા) સંબંધિત કેસોમાં ગુજરાત હાઈકોર્ટ દ્વારા Anticipatory Bail આપતી વખતે વારંવાર જોવા મળતી ટોપ 15 મહત્વપૂર્ણ નોંધો / Observations ગુજરાતીમાં આપવામાં આવે છે. આ મુદ્દાઓ પ્રેક્ટિસમાં દલીલ માટે બહુ ઉપયોગી બને છે.

IPC 306 – ગુજરાત હાઈકોર્ટની ટોપ 15 Anticipatory Bail Observations (ગુજરાતીમાં)

1️⃣ માત્ર આક્ષેપ પૂરતા નથી

ફરિયાદમાં સામાન્ય આરોપ હોય અને કોઈ સ્પષ્ટ “instigation” કે “abetment” દર્શાવતું કાર્ય ન હોય તો ધરપકડ જરૂરી માનવામાં આવતી નથી.

2️⃣ Suicide Note હોવું પૂરતું નથી

આત્મહત્યાની ચિઠ્ઠીમાં નામ લખાયેલું હોય છતાં, આરોપીની સીધી ભૂમિકા દર્શાવતી ઘટના જરૂરી ગણાય છે.

3️⃣ Mens Rea (ઇરાદો) સાબિત થવો જરૂરી

આત્મહત્યાનો સીધો ઉદ્દેશ્યપૂર્વક પ્રેરણા આપવાનો ઈરાદો ન દેખાતો હોય તો 306 ની કલમ પ્રાથમિક રીતે લાગુ પડે નહીં.

4️⃣ નાગરિક / પારિવારિક વિવાદને ક્રિમિનલ રંગ આપવો યોગ્ય નથી

પૈસાની લેવડદેવડ, મિલકત ઝઘડા અથવા પરિવારના મતભેદોને કારણે થયેલી આત્મહત્યામાં સીધો abetment ન હોય તો anticipatory bail આપવામાં આવે છે.

5️⃣ Hypersensitive વ્યક્તિનો મુદ્દો

મૃતક વ્યક્તિ અત્યંત સંવેદનશીલ હોય અને સામાન્ય વાતથી આત્મહત્યા કરી હોય તો આરોપીની જવાબદારી મર્યાદિત માનવામાં આવે છે.

6️⃣ ઘટના અને આત્મહત્યામાં સમયગાળો મહત્વનો

આક્ષેપિત ઘટના અને આત્મહત્યાના દિવસે લાંબો ગાળો હોય તો “proximate cause” ન હોવાનું માનવામાં આવે છે.

7️⃣ Custodial Interrogation જરૂરી નથી

ડોક્યુમેન્ટરી પુરાવા હોય અને આરોપી તપાસમાં સહકાર આપે તો કસ્ટડીમાં પૂછપરછ જરૂરી નથી – anticipatory bail માટે મજબૂત આધાર.

8️⃣ Omnibus Allegations પર Bail

ફરિયાદમાં બધા આરોપીઓ સામે એકસરખા સામાન્ય આક્ષેપ હોય તો હાઈકોર્ટ anticipatory bail આપવાની વૃત્તિ રાખે છે.

9️⃣ WhatsApp / ફોન કૉલ વિવાદ

માત્ર મેસેજિંગ અથવા ફોન પર થયેલી તીવ્ર બોલાચાલી આત્મહત્યામાં પ્રેરણા તરીકે પૂરતી માનવામાં આવતી નથી.

🔟 ધમકી કે ગાળો આપવી ≠ Instigation

એકાદ ગુસ્સામાં બોલાયેલા શબ્દો કે ધમકી આપવાથી Section 306 સીધું લાગુ પડે એવું નથી.

1️⃣1️⃣ FIR માં વિલંબ (Delay)

આત્મહત્યાના પછી લાંબા સમય બાદ નોંધાયેલી FIR ને કોર્ટ શંકાની નજરે જુએ છે.

1️⃣2️⃣ Criminal Antecedents ના હોવા

આરોપીનો અગાઉનો ગુનાહિત ઇતિહાસ ન હોય તો anticipatory bail માટે અનુકૂળ પરિસ્થિતિ બને છે.

1️⃣3️⃣ મહિલા / વરિષ્ઠ નાગરિક આરોપી

પરિસ્થિતિ પ્રમાણે મહિલા કે વરિષ્ઠ નાગરિક આરોપીને કોર્ટ વધુ રક્ષણ આપે છે.

1️⃣4️⃣ Civil Remedy ઉપલબ્ધ હોય તો

જો વિવાદ માટે નાગરિક કાયદા હેઠળ ઉપાય ઉપલબ્ધ હોય તો Section 306 નો દુરુપયોગ માનવામાં આવે છે.

1️⃣5️⃣ Freedom & Liberty Principle

કોર્ટ કહે છે કે તપાસ પહેલા ધરપકડ સજા સમાન ન બની જાય, તેથી 306 IPC કેસમાં તથ્યોનું સખત મૂલ્યાંકન જરૂરી છે.

પ્રેક્ટિકલ વકીલાત નોંધ

ગુજરાત હાઈકોર્ટમાં IPC 306 anticipatory bail દરમિયાન નીચેના મુદ્દા ખાસ અસરકારક સાબિત થાય છે:

✔ “Direct Instigation નથી”
✔ “Mens Rea સાબિત થતું નથી”
✔ “Custodial Interrogation જરૂરી નથી”
✔ “Civil Dispute ને Criminal બનાવવામાં આવ્યું છે”

IPC 306 – Anticipatory Bail માટે Oral Arguments

🔹 1️⃣ પ્રારંભિક રજૂઆત (Opening Submission)

  • “માય લોર્ડશિપ, FIR માં દર્શાવેલા આક્ષેપો prima facie IPC 306 ના મૂળ તત્ત્વો પૂરા કરતા નથી.”

  • Instigation, Mens Rea અને Proximity – ત્રણેય ઘટકો ગેરહાજર છે.

🔹 2️⃣ Instigation નો અભાવ

  • FIR માં કોઈ ચોક્કસ તારીખ, સમય કે ઘટના દર્શાવવામાં આવી નથી જ્યાં અરજદાર દ્વારા આત્મહત્યાની સીધી પ્રેરણા આપવામાં આવી હોય.

  • માત્ર સામાન્ય આરોપો anticipatory bail નકારવા પૂરતા નથી.

🔹 3️⃣ Mens Rea સાબિત થતું નથી

  • અરજદારનો આત્મહત્યાનો ઈરાદો ઉભો કરવાનો કોઈ પુરાવો નથી.

  • પરિવાર / નાગરિક વિવાદને ક્રિમિનલ રંગ આપવામાં આવ્યો છે.

🔹 4️⃣ Proximity Test – ઘટનાનો સમયગાળો

  • FIR મુજબની ઘટના અને આત્મહત્યાની વચ્ચે લાંબો સમયગાળો છે.

  • “Live Link” ના અભાવે Section 306 લાગુ પડે તેવું દેખાતું નથી.

🔹 5️⃣ Suicide Note અંગે દલીલ

  • જો Suicide Note હોય તો પણ તેમાં Specific Overt Act દર્શાવવામાં આવ્યો નથી.

  • માત્ર નામ ઉલ્લેખ કરવાથી abetment સાબિત થતું નથી.

🔹 6️⃣ Custodial Interrogation જરૂરી નથી

  • સમગ્ર કેસ ડોક્યુમેન્ટરી / સ્ટેટમેન્ટ આધારિત છે.

  • અરજદાર તપાસમાં સહકાર આપવા તૈયાર છે.

  • ધરપકડ કર્યા વગર તપાસ શક્ય છે.

🔹 7️⃣ Civil Dispute નો એંગલ

  • પૈસા, મિલકત, પારિવારિક અથવા વ્યવસાયિક મતભેદ – જે civil nature ધરાવે છે.

  • આવા વિવાદને Section 306 હેઠળ ખેંચવું કાયદાનો દુરુપયોગ છે.

🔹 8️⃣ Omnibus Allegations

  • તમામ આરોપીઓ સામે સમાન અને સામાન્ય આક્ષેપો કરવામાં આવ્યા છે.

  • કોઈ વ્યક્તિગત ભૂમિકા સ્પષ્ટ નથી.

🔹 9️⃣ Delay in FIR

  • આત્મહત્યાની ઘટનાથી FIR નોંધવામાં વિલંબ થયો છે, જે ફરિયાદની વિશ્વસનીયતા પર પ્રશ્ન ઊભો કરે છે.

🔹 🔟 અરજદારની પર્સનલ પરિસ્થિતિ

  • કોઈ પૂર્વ ગુનાહિત ઇતિહાસ નથી.

  • સમાજમાં સ્થિર સરનામું અને વ્યવસાય ધરાવે છે.

  • ભાગી જવાની શક્યતા નથી.

🔹 1️⃣1️⃣ Article 21 – Liberty Principle

  • ધરપકડ સજા સમાન ન બની જાય તે માટે anticipatory bail જરૂરી છે.

  • વ્યક્તિગત સ્વતંત્રતા સંવિધાનિક અધિકાર છે.

🔹 1️⃣2️⃣ અંતિમ પ્રાર્થના (Prayer)

  • “આ પરિસ્થિતિમાં, માનનીય અદાલત યોગ્ય શરતો સાથે anticipatory bail મંજુર કરે તેવી નમ્ર વિનંતી.”

પ્રેક્ટિકલ એડવોકેટ ટિપ (કોર્ટમાં)

દલીલ દરમિયાન આ ત્રણ લાઇન ખાસ અસરકારક રહે છે:

✔ “Prima facie ingredients of Section 306 are missing.”
✔ “No custodial interrogation is required.”
✔ “Dispute is essentially civil in nature.”

Submission in Gujarati & English Language

માય લોર્ડશિપ,

હું અરજદાર તરફથી રજૂઆત કરું છું કે હાલની FIR ના વાંચનથી prima facie IPC કલમ 306 ના જરૂરી ઘટકો સ્થાપિત થતા નથી. ફરિયાદમાં ક્યાંય પણ એવી ચોક્કસ ઘટના દર્શાવવામાં આવી નથી જેમાં અરજદાર દ્વારા મૃતકને આત્મહત્યાની સીધી પ્રેરણા આપવામાં આવી હોય. માત્ર સામાન્ય અને omnibus પ્રકારના આક્ષેપો anticipatory bail નકારવા માટે પૂરતા નથી.

માય લોર્ડશિપ, FIR માં દર્શાવેલા તથ્યોને સંપૂર્ણ રીતે માન્ય રાખીએ તો પણ Instigation, Mens Rea અને Proximity – આ ત્રણેય આવશ્યક તત્ત્વો ગેરહાજર છે. અરજદાર દ્વારા કોઈ intentional aid અથવા direct provocation થયાનો કોઈ prima facie પુરાવો નથી. મૃતક અને અરજદાર વચ્ચે જે વિવાદ દર્શાવવામાં આવ્યો છે તે મૂળભૂત રીતે નાગરિક અથવા વ્યક્તિગત સ્વરૂપનો છે, જેને ખોટી રીતે ક્રિમિનલ રંગ આપવામાં આવ્યો છે.

આગળ રજૂ કરું કે ઘટના અને આત્મહત્યાની વચ્ચે નોંધપાત્ર સમયગાળો છે, જેથી alleged conduct અને suicide વચ્ચે live link દેખાતી નથી. જો Suicide Note નો ઉલ્લેખ કરવામાં આવ્યો હોય તો પણ તેમાં અરજદાર સામે કોઈ specific overt act દર્શાવવામાં આવ્યો નથી. માત્ર નામનો ઉલ્લેખ Section 306 ના ગુનાને સ્થાપિત કરવા માટે પૂરતો નથી.

માય લોર્ડશિપ, સમગ્ર કેસ ડોક્યુમેન્ટરી પુરાવા અને સ્ટેટમેન્ટ્સ પર આધારિત છે. અરજદાર તપાસમાં સંપૂર્ણ સહકાર આપવા તૈયાર છે અને custodial interrogation જરૂરી નથી. ધરપકડ વિના તપાસ શક્ય હોય ત્યારે anticipatory bail નકારવી એ વ્યક્તિગત સ્વતંત્રતા પર અનાવશ્યક પ્રહાર સમાન બને છે.

અરજદારનો કોઈ પૂર્વ ગુનાહિત ઇતિહાસ નથી, સમાજમાં સ્થિર સરનામું ધરાવે છે અને તપાસમાંથી ભાગી જવાની કોઈ શક્યતા નથી. FIR નોંધવામાં થયેલો વિલંબ પણ ફરિયાદની વિશ્વસનીયતા પર પ્રશ્ન ઊભો કરે છે, જે anticipatory bail માટે અનુકૂળ પરિસ્થિતિ ઉભી કરે છે.

માય લોર્ડશિપ, Article 21 હેઠળ વ્યક્તિગત સ્વતંત્રતા એક મૂળભૂત અધિકાર છે અને ધરપકડ સજા સમાન ન બની જાય તે માટે આ માનનીય અદાલત દ્વારા રક્ષણ આપવું આવશ્યક છે.

આ તમામ પરિસ્થિતિઓને ધ્યાનમાં રાખીને, માનનીય અદાલત યોગ્ય અને કડક શરતો સાથે અરજદારને anticipatory bail મંજુર કરે તેવી નમ્ર પ્રાર્થના છે.

May it please Your Lordship,

I appear on behalf of the applicant and respectfully submit that even a plain reading of the FIR does not disclose the essential ingredients required to attract Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code. The allegations made in the complaint are general and omnibus in nature, and there is no specific instance indicating any direct instigation by the present applicant leading to the alleged suicide.

Your Lordship, even if the contents of the FIR are accepted at their face value, the three fundamental elements — Instigation, Mens Rea, and Proximity — are completely absent. There is no prima facie material to suggest that the applicant had any intention to provoke, aid, or compel the deceased to take such an extreme step. The dispute referred to in the FIR appears to be purely civil or personal in nature and has been unnecessarily given a criminal colour.

It is further submitted that there exists a substantial time gap between the alleged incident and the unfortunate suicide, thereby breaking the live link or proximate cause required under Section 306. Even assuming that a suicide note exists, the same does not attribute any specific overt act to the applicant. Mere reference to a person’s name, without clear allegations of instigation, is insufficient to constitute abetment of suicide.

Your Lordship, the case is primarily based on documentary material and statements. The applicant is ready and willing to cooperate with the investigation at all stages, and therefore custodial interrogation is not warranted. When investigation can proceed without arrest, denial of anticipatory bail would amount to an unnecessary curtailment of the applicant’s personal liberty.

The applicant has no criminal antecedents, has a permanent place of residence, and there is no likelihood of absconding or tampering with evidence. Moreover, the delay in lodging the FIR also raises serious doubts regarding the credibility of the prosecution’s case, which is a relevant factor while considering anticipatory bail.

Your Lordship, protection of personal liberty is a fundamental facet of Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and arrest should not become punitive at the pre-trial stage. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the applicant deserves the discretionary relief of anticipatory bail.

I therefore humbly pray that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant anticipatory bail to the applicant on such terms and conditions as deemed fit and proper.

Much obliged, Your Lordship.

Legal Words and its Definitions

FIR

A FIR (First Information Report) is the initial complaint recorded by the police when a cognizable offense is reported. It serves as the basis for the investigation and includes essential details of the alleged crime.

Quash

Quash refers to the legal process of nullifying or canceling an official proceeding, order, or complaint. Courts quash FIRs or orders if they lack merit or violate legal principles.

Quashing

Quashing is the act of invalidating a case, FIR, or legal order by the authority of a court, often based on lack of evidence, jurisdictional errors, or procedural irregularities.

Summons

A summons is a legal document issued by a court requiring a person to appear before it on a specified date, either as a witness, accused, or respondent.

Notice

A notice is a formal written communication informing an individual or entity about legal proceedings, obligations, or actions they need to address or comply with.

Warrant

A warrant is a legal authorization issued by a court allowing law enforcement to arrest, search, or detain a person, or seize property in connection with a case.

Bailable

Bailable offenses allow the accused to obtain bail as a matter of right, often for less severe crimes, upon fulfilling certain conditions set by the court.

Non-Bailable

Non-bailable offenses are more serious in nature, requiring judicial discretion for granting bail, with no automatic right for the accused to secure release.

Bail

Bail is the temporary release of an accused person awaiting trial, granted under certain conditions to ensure their appearance in court.

Anticipatory Bail

Anticipatory bail is a legal provision allowing an individual to seek bail in advance to avoid arrest when they anticipate being accused of a crime.

Regular Bail

Regular bail is granted to an accused person already in custody, ensuring their release pending trial or investigation.

Successive Bail

Successive bail refers to subsequent bail applications filed after an earlier one has been rejected, usually requiring new grounds or evidence.

Bail Application

A bail application is a formal request submitted to the court, seeking the release of an accused person on bail, explaining legal grounds for the plea.

Bail Bond

A bail bond is a financial guarantee provided by the accused or a surety, ensuring their compliance with court appearances and conditions after bail is granted.

Police Station

A police station is a designated location where law enforcement operates, handling complaints, investigations, and maintaining law and order in its jurisdiction.

Act

An act is a formal legislative statute passed by Parliament or a state assembly, providing rules, regulations, and procedures governing various matters.

Law

Law is the system of rules and guidelines established by society, enforced through institutions, to regulate conduct and ensure justice.

Section

A section is a distinct part of a legal statute or act, specifying particular rules, provisions, or guidelines within the larger framework of the law.

Jail

Jail is a facility for detaining individuals accused or convicted of crimes, serving as a correctional or pre-trial holding institution.

Magistrates

Magistrates are judicial officers responsible for administering justice in lower courts, handling minor cases, bail matters, and preliminary inquiries.

Judges

Judges preside over courts, interpreting laws, assessing evidence, and delivering judgments to ensure justice is served in legal disputes or cases.

Jamanat

Jamanat refers to bail or security deposited to ensure an accused person’s release from custody while guaranteeing their court appearances.

Complaint

A complaint is a formal legal statement filed by an individual or entity alleging wrongdoing or seeking redress for grievances.

Complainant

The complainant is the person or party who files a legal complaint, initiating proceedings against an accused person or entity.

Accused

An accused is an individual formally charged or suspected of committing a crime, pending trial or investigation to establish guilt or innocence.

Seize

Seizing refers to the lawful confiscation or detention of property, goods, or evidence by authorities during an investigation or enforcement.

Crime

Crime is any act or omission punishable by law, considered harmful to individuals, society, or the state, including theft, fraud, and assault.

Criminal

A criminal is an individual convicted of violating laws, having committed acts deemed punishable under the legal system.

Case

A case is a legal dispute or criminal matter brought before a court for resolution or judgment based on presented evidence and arguments.

Expert

An expert is a person with specialized knowledge or skills in a particular field, often called upon for advice or testimony in legal matters.

Specialist

A specialist is someone highly skilled or knowledgeable in a specific area of law, offering expert legal counsel or representation.

Top

Top refers to being at the highest rank or level in a given field, often used to describe leading lawyers or advocates with a successful track record.

Best

Best signifies unparalleled quality or excellence, frequently used for legal professionals known for exceptional expertise and success.

Lawyers

Lawyers are legal professionals licensed to provide advice, represent clients in courts, and assist with legal matters.

Advocates

Advocates are licensed practitioners authorized to appear in courts and represent clients, providing legal advice and advocacy.

Law Firm

A law firm is a professional organization where lawyers or advocates collaborate to provide a wide range of legal services to clients.

Legal

Legal refers to anything permitted by or related to the law, including activities, advice, and services within the legal framework.

Services

Services encompass the assistance, representation, and expertise provided by legal professionals in resolving disputes and legal issues.

Court

A court is a judicial institution where legal disputes are resolved, and justice is administered under the law.

Offense

An offense is a punishable act violating criminal laws, ranging from minor violations to serious felonies.

Trial

A trial is a formal legal process in court where evidence is presented, and arguments are made to determine the outcome of a case.

District Court

District Courts are the primary courts of law for civil and criminal cases, operating within a specific geographical area or district.

Sessions Court

Sessions Courts handle serious criminal offenses, including cases that require greater judicial discretion and sentencing.

High Court

High Courts are the highest judicial authorities in a state, with appellate and original jurisdiction over significant civil and criminal matters.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court is the apex judicial authority in India, handling constitutional matters and appeals against High Court judgments.

Gujarat

Gujarat is a state in western India, known for its legal framework addressing diverse cases, with Advocate Paresh M Modi offering top-notch legal services.

Near Me

“Near me” refers to finding local legal services or professionals in proximity for convenient access to legal assistance.

Appeal

An appeal is a formal request to a higher court to review and potentially overturn a lower court’s judgment or order.

Revision

Revision involves reviewing and rectifying procedural or jurisdictional errors in a lower court’s judgment or decision.

Airport

Airports often involve legal cases like customs violations or smuggling, requiring specialized lawyers for representation.

Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate

The Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate handles significant criminal and civil cases within their jurisdiction at a subordinate level.

Cheque

A cheque is a negotiable instrument instructing a bank to pay a specific amount from an account holder’s funds to a designated party.

NI Act

The Negotiable Instruments Act governs financial instruments like cheques, including penalties for dishonor due to insufficient funds.

Cheque Return

Cheque return occurs when a bank declines to honor a cheque, often due to insufficient funds or signature mismatch.

Cheque Dishonour

Cheque dishonor happens when a cheque cannot be processed due to insufficient funds, stop payments, or other technical reasons.

Cheque Bounce

Cheque bounce refers to the non-fulfillment of a cheque’s payment, often leading to legal action under the Negotiable Instruments Act.

 

Judgement

A judgment is the formal decision issued by a court following the evaluation of evidence and legal arguments in a case.

 

CBI

The Central Bureau of Investigation is India’s premier agency for investigating complex and high-profile cases.

ED

The Enforcement Directorate is tasked with investigating financial crimes, including money laundering and foreign exchange violations.

EOW

The Economic Offenses Wing specializes in addressing white-collar crimes, such as fraud, embezzlement, and corporate mismanagement.

POCSO

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act provides stringent measures to prevent and penalize crimes against children.

SEBI

The Securities and Exchange Board of India regulates the securities market, ensuring transparency and investor protection.

DRI

The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence investigates customs-related offenses, including smuggling and tax evasion.

ACB

The Anti-Corruption Bureau addresses corruption cases involving public officials, ensuring integrity in public services.

PMLA

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act aims to combat money laundering by attaching properties and prosecuting offenders.

CVC

The Central Vigilance Commission oversees vigilance matters, ensuring transparency and accountability in public administration.

Practicing Across Gujarat

Practicing Areas and Cities Covered by Advocate Paresh M Modi for Premium Matters

Ahmedabad, Adalaj, Adipur, Ahwa, Aithor, Alang, Ambaji, Aambaliyasan, Amod, Amreli, Anand, Ankleshwar, Anjar, Atul, Babra, Bagasara, Balasinor, Banaskantha, Bardoli, Baroda, Bayad, Bavla, Bechraji, Bhachau, Bharuch, Bhavnagar, Bhuj, Bilimora, Borsad, Botad, Chaklasi, Chanasma, Chhota Udepur, Chikhli, Chorvad, Chotila, Dahisara, Dahod, Dahegam, Dakor, Danta, Dang, Dediapada, Deesa, Devbhumi Dwarka, Dhanera, Dhandhuka, Dholera, Dhrangadhra, Dhoraji, Dhrol, Dharampur, Disa, Diu, Dwarka, Fatehganj, Gandhidham, Gandhinagar, Gir Somnath, Ghoghamba, Godhra, Gondal, Gozaria, Halol, Halvad, Hansot, Harij, Himmat Nagar, Idar, Jamjodhpur, Jamnagar, Jasdan, Jetalpur, Jetpur, Jambughoda, Junagadh, Kachchh, Kadi, Kalol, Kanjari, Kanodar, Kankrej, Karjan, Katargam, Keshod, Kheda, Khambhat, Kodinar, Kosamba, Koth, Kutiyana, Lakhtar, Lalpur, Lathi, Limdi, Lunawada, Mahisagar, Mahemdavad, Mahuva, Malpur, Mandvi, Mansa, Manavadar, Mangrol, Matar, Mehsana, Modasa, Morbi, Muli, Mundra, Nadiad, Nakhatrana, Naliya, Narmada, Naroda, Narol, Navsari, Okha, Olpad, Padra, Palanpur, Paliyad, Palitana, Panchmahal, Patan, Petlad, Pipavav, Porbandar, Prantij, Radhanpur, Rajkot, Rajpipla, Ranavav, Ranpur, Sabarkantha, Salaya, Samakhiali, Sanand, Santrampur, Savarkundla, Savli, Sayan, Shahera, Shihor, Sidhpur, Sikka, Sojitra, Songadh, Surat, Surendranagar, Sutrapada, Talaja, Talod, Tapi, Tarapur, Tharad, Thasra, Umreth, Una, Unjha, Upleta, Umergam, Vadnagar, Vadodara, Vaghodia, Vaav, Valsad, Vansda, Vapi, Veraval, Vijapur, Visnagar, Viramgam, Vyara, Wankaner, Zinzuwada,

Contact – Advocate Paresh M Modi

Mobile: +91 9925002031 (WhatsApp only 9 AM–9 PM)
Office: +91-79-48001468
Email: advocatepmmodi@gmail.com
Website: www.advocatepmmodi.in
Office Address:
Office No. C/112, Supath-2 Complex, Opp. Kohinoor Plaza Hotel,
Near Old Wadaj Bus Stand, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad – 380013, Gujarat

Real Reviews from Clients of Advocate Paresh M. Modi

Connect with Advocate Paresh M Modi on Google

Previous

Author: Advocate Paresh M Modi

As a law firm, Advocate Paresh M Modi is having a team of expert Advocates who provide expert advice and guide the clients on the complicated issues of court proceedings in India. Our law firm has been advising clients to adopt a systematic approach as per the provisions of the law and the requirements of the statute. Being the Best Advocate in Ahmedabad, Advocate Paresh M Modi has been serving the clients according to the provisions of law as Advocate Paresh M Modi is an Experienced Lawyer in Gujarat.Paresh M Modi and his associates have been rendering excellent work owing to their experience in Gujarat High Court for more than 7 years together and having established themselves as a seasoned advocate in the High Court of Gujarat by dealing with various matters in a different fields. It has been made possible to see that the client in any corner of the State of Gujarat could get genuine legal advice and the presence of a lawyer on account of the association with Advocates in various cities of the State of Gujarat.

People Also Search For :