Constitution of India – Arts. 226 and 227 – Code of CriminalProcedure, 1973 – s.482 and s.439 – Penal Code, 1860 – s.306 ands. 34 – The appellant was arrested on 04.11.2020 in connectionwith FIR registered u/s. 306 and s.34 of the IPC – It was alleged thatthe appellant had not paid an amount due to the deceased for thework which was carried out by him, as a result of which he wasunder mental pressure and he committed suicide by hanging – In thesuicide note three individuals were held responsible including theappellant – The appellant invoked jurisdiction of the High Court u/Arts. 226/227 of the Constitution and s.482 of the Cr.P.C. and soughtquashing of FIR along with other reliefs – Pending the disposal ofthe petition, the appellant filed an application and sought his releasefrom the judicial custody – The High Court held that since theappellant was in judicial custody, it was open to him avail of theremedy of bail u/s. 439 of the Cr.P.C. – The High Court declinedprima facie to consider the submission of the appellant that theallegations in the FIR, read as they stand, do not disclose thecommission of an offence u/s. 306 of the IPC – The appellant filedan appeal before the Supreme Court aggrieved by the denial of hisinterim prayer for the grant of bail – On 11.11.2020, the SupremeCourt, after reserving the judgment, ordered and directed the releaseof all the three individuals including appellant on bail pending thedisposal of the proceedings before the High Court – Held: Accordingto the spouse of the deceased, her husband was over the previoustwo years ‘having pressure as he did not receive the money of workcarried out by him’ – The deceased left behind a suicide note statingthat his “money is stuck and following owners of respective companiesare not paying our legitimate dues” – The consistent line of authorityof Supreme Court lays down that in order to bring a case within thepurview of s.306 IPC, there must be a case of suicide and in thecommission of the said offence, the person who is said to haveabetted the commission of suicide must have played an active roleby an act of instigation or by doing certain act to facilitate thecommission of suicide – Therefore, the act of abetment by the personcharged with the said offence must be proved and established bythe prosecution – In the instant case, prima facie, on the applicationof test laid down by the Supreme Court it cannot be said that theappellant was guilty of having abetted suicide within the meaningof s.306 of the IPC – The High Court in failing to notice the contentsof FIR and to make a prima facie evaluation abdicated its role,functions and jurisdiction when seized of petition u/s. 482 of Cr.P.C.–As a consequence of its failure to perform its function u/s. 482 Cr.P.C.,the High Court disabled itself from exercising its jurisdiction u/Art.226to consider appellant’s application for bail – While consideringapplication u/Art. 226, the High Court must be circumspect inexercising its power on the basis of the facts of each case – However,the High court should not foreclose itself from the exercise of thepower when a citizen has been arbitrarily deprived of their personalliberty in an excess of state power – Therefore, the interim protectiongranted to the accused on 11.11.2020 continue to remain in operationpending the disposal of the proceedings before the High Court.Constitution of India – Art.226 – Power to grant interim bail– The appellant was arrested in connection with FIR registered u/s.306 and s.34 of the IPC – Appellant filed petition u/Art.226/227 ofthe Constitution and u/s.482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIRand the arrest memo – Thereafter, the appellant filed application forinterim bail – The High Court declined to evaluate prima facie at theinterim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR as to whether anarguable case has been made out – The High Court further declinedto allow the appellant’s prayer for interim bail and relegated him tothe remedy u/s.439 of Cr.P.C. – Aggrieved, the appellant filed anappeal before the Supreme Court – It was submitted by therespondents that procedural hierarchy of Courts in mattersconcerning the grant of bail needs to be respected – Held: Therespondents are right in submitting that the procedural hierarchy ofcourts in matters concerning the grant of bail needs to be respected– However, there was a failure of the High Court to discharge itsadjudicatory function at two levels – first in declining to evaluateprima facie at the interim stage in a petition for quashing the FIR asto whether an arguable case has been made out, and secondly, indeclining interim bail, as a consequence of its failure to render aprima facie opinion on the first – The High Court did have the powerto protect the citizen by an interim order in a petition invoking Art.226 – Where the High Court has failed to do so, Supreme Courtwould be abdicating its role and functions as a constitutional courtif it refuses to interfere, despite the parameters for such interferencebeing met.Words and Phrases – “Human Liberty and the role of the Courts” –discussed.