Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code (IPC): Section 306 (Abetment of Suicide)
• Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC): Relevant provisions related to anticipatory bail

Subjects:

Anticipatory Bail, Section 306 IPC, Abetment of Suicide, Custodial Interrogation, Conditions for Bail, High Court Order, Investigation

Facts:

Nature of the Litigation:
The appellant, Mamta Kaur, sought anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 13 dated 14.02.2023, registered under Section 306 IPC. The case originated from allegations of abetment of suicide.

Reason for Filing the Case:
The appellant claimed she had cooperated with the investigation and that custodial interrogation was not necessary. Despite this, the High Court rejected her plea for anticipatory bail, leading to the present appeal.

Relevant Laws in Question:
Section 306 IPC, concerning abetment of suicide, was the central issue. The provisions regarding anticipatory bail under CrPC were also relevant.

What Has Been Already Decided Until Now?
The High Court rejected the appellant’s plea for anticipatory bail. However, the Supreme Court noted that she had cooperated with the investigation and that the investigating officer stated her custodial interrogation was no longer required.

Issues:

1. Whether the appellant should be granted anticipatory bail in connection with FIR No. 13 under Section 306 IPC.
2. Whether custodial interrogation was necessary in light of the appellant’s cooperation with the investigation.

Submissions/Arguments:

• Appellant's Arguments:

  • The appellant had joined the investigation as directed by the Court.
  • The investigating officer confirmed that no further custodial interrogation was required.
  • Rejection of anticipatory bail would amount to unnecessary harassment.

• Respondent's Arguments (State of Punjab):

  • The State submitted that custodial interrogation was not required but emphasized compliance with any conditions imposed by the Court.

Decision:

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and granted anticipatory bail to the appellant. It directed her release on bail in the event of arrest, subject to conditions imposed by the trial court. The Court also allowed the State to seek cancellation of bail if the appellant breached any conditions.

Ratio:

The Supreme Court based its decision on the following principles:

1. Custodial interrogation is unnecessary when the appellant cooperates with the investigation.
2. The power to grant anticipatory bail aims to prevent harassment and undue hardship in cases where detention is not justified.
3. The Court acknowledged the investigating officer’s letter confirming that the appellant’s custodial interrogation was no longer needed.