Today, On 16th December, The Allahabad High Court heard the anticipatory bail plea of Sushil Singhania, the uncle of Atul Subhash’s estranged wife, in connection with an abetment to suicide case. During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari sought transit remand bail, citing concerns over media influence and the judiciary’s discretion. Justice Srivastava stated the order would be uploaded later in the evening while addressing arguments related to jurisdiction, evidence, and alleged external influences.
The Allahabad High Court commenced hearings on the anticipatory bail plea filed by Sushil Singhania, the uncle of Atul Subhash’s estranged wife, in relation to an abetment to suicide case.
During the proceedings, Senior Advocate Manish Tiwari, representing Sushil, expressed concerns about media influence, stating,
“I seek transit remand bail. Unfortunately, the media has started its own trial, attempting to overshadow the judiciary and take matters into their own hands.”
He further requested permission to approach the appropriate court in Bangalore. The Government Advocate responded by highlighting that “the minor son is missing and cannot be located,”
To which Tiwari countered, “The child is with you.”
The Government Advocate also mentioned that the Bangalore police had issued a two-day notice, but the parties did not appear.
Tiwari pointed out the timeline of events, stating,
“The FIR was filed on the 9th, the petition on the 12th, and we were arrested on the 13th or 14th. There are external influences at play.”
Justice Srivastava then inquired if the suicide note had been attached to the plea, to which Tiwari affirmed its inclusion, stating,
“Yes. If we are to believe this note, it raises questions about who else might be implicated. There are specific allegations against the presiding officer—why is she not being held accountable?”
In response, the Government Advocate noted,
“The records have been summoned by the High Court on the administrative side.”
During the proceedings, the Government Advocate (GA) stated,
“Transit bail can be granted under certain conditions when the court lacks jurisdiction,”
To which Justice Srivastava replied,
“There is no explicit bar on that.”
The GA further argued that specific conditions apply and that the requests in the application cannot be granted, while Justice Srivastava noted,
“That can be left to the discretion of this Court.”
The GA emphasized that the matter was being sensationalized by the media, mentioning that they had taken Atul Subhash’s wife and her relatives from Jaunpur, and that the SP had been informed.
During the proceedings, Senior Counsel Manish Tiwari questioned the speed of action taken by the police in arresting the accused, remarking,
“Even Osama Bin Laden wasn’t apprehended this quickly.”
He elaborated,
“The FIR was lodged on December 9, the petition was filed on December 12, and by December 13-14, the accused were arrested. The Prayagraj police weren’t even informed. How can they proceed without notifying the local authorities? This will create further issues.”
Justice Srivastava cautioned,
“Please avoid any conflict.”
Senior Advocate Tiwari referenced the Supreme Court’s decision in Priya Indoria v. State of Karnataka and contended, “Lordship may set that aside. Even assuming I was involved in harassment, can that lead to abetment?”
The GA requested that if the court intended to protect Tiwari, it should limit the protection to no more than one week. Tiwari argued for a longer period due to the upcoming vacation in Bangalore, stating,
“The holiday in Karnataka lasts until the 1st—please provide protection until the 2nd.”
The complainant’s advocate interjected with specific allegations against Tiwari, to which he responded,
“Regarding the child, they brought the police from Bangalore in just three days. How do we know the child isn’t with them?”
The GA then mentioned that Nikita stated the child was with a relative, leading Tiwari to question,
“A 70-year-old accused of neuropathy is roaming around with a 4-year-old child? Why are these arguments being made on merits?”
Tiwari stated,
“We are seeking limited relief to approach the appropriate court.”
Justice Srivastava responded,
“Alright, I will consider this… What about the other three accused?”
The court was informed that the other accused were already in judicial custody in Bangalore.
In light of this, Tiwari requested, “Please grant us protection until then.”
Atul Subhash, a 34-year-old deputy general manager at a private firm, was found dead by suicide on Monday in his Bengaluru apartment. He left behind a 24-page suicide note accusing his wife and her relatives of harassment. The note also alleged that a judge had demanded Rs 5 lakh to “settle” the case.
Earlier, the wife of Bengaluru-based techie Atul Subhash, who tragically died by suicide, along with her parents, has sought anticipatory bail from the Allahabad High Court.
The plea was filed mere hours after the Bengaluru police summoned them to appear at the Marathahalli Police Station within three days.
The petition was submitted by the deceased’s wife, Nikita Singhania, alongside her mother, Nisha Singhania, father, Sushil Singhania, and brother, Anurag Singhania, as they seek anticipatory bail.
Officials indicated that the High Court is expected to hear their petition on Monday.
DCP Kumar stated that multiple teams were deployed to various locations to apprehend the accused.
Meanwhile, Pawan Kumar Modi, the father of the deceased, has appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Bihar Chief Minister Nitish Kumar for custody of his grandson. Although he expressed gratitude to the police for the arrests, he emphasized that justice remains incomplete as a new maintenance case has been filed against him concerning his grandson.
Atul Subhash’s brother, Bikas Kumar Modi, also voiced concerns about the whereabouts of his nephew, noting that two additional arrests in the case are yet to be made.
Following this, Singhania and her family approached the Allahabad High Court to seek anticipatory bail in the case. The matter is yet to come up for hearing.
Meanwhile, a public interest litigation (PIL) was filed in the Supreme Court, highlighting the alleged misuse of dowry and domestic violence laws against men and requesting guidelines to prevent such abuse.