Crm No. M-27938 of 2013 (Oandm) Vs. State of Punjab --respondent - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1153340
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJun-30-2014
AppellantCrm No. M-27938 of 2013 (Oandm)
RespondentState of Punjab --respondent
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh crm no.m-27938 of 2013 (o&m) date of decision: 30.6.2014. ashwani kumar --petitioner versus state of punjab --respondent coram:- hon'ble mr.justice tejinder singh dhindsa. present:- mr.i.p.s.kohli, advocate for the petitioner. mr.k.s.sidhu, d.a.g., punjab. mr.p.c.chaudhary, advocate for the complainant. *** tejinder singh dhindsa.j this order shall dispose of the present petition filed under section 439 cr.p.c praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case f.i.r.no.170 dated 6.11.2012 under sections 306, 34 i.p.c, registered at police station, lalru, district s.a.s.nagar, mohali. the deceased in the present case is neetu, who is alleged to have committed suicide on 6.11.2012. the present petitioner is the husband of deceased and the f.i.r has been registered on the statement of her brother namely davinder singh. as per prosecution version marriage between the petitioner and the deceased took place in september, 2000 and out of such wedlock two sons were born. allegations are that the relations between the husband and wife were not cordial primarily on account of two reasons i.e.the present petitioner allegedly having maintained illicit relations with another lady and secondly not providing money to the deceased so as to survive in the matrimonial home. further allegation is that on 5.11.2012 the deceased had made a call to her brother i.e.the complainant on his mobile lucky 2014.07.01 16:18 i attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh crm no.m-27938 of 2013 (o&m) -2- phone at about 1/1.30 p.m and had disclosed that her father-in-law as also her husband, present petitioner had made her life miserable and she could not tolerate such situation any more and wanted to end her life. it is against such factual backdrop that the criminal prosecution had been launched against the present petitioner. it would be apposite to notice that father-in-law of the deceased, even though, had been found to be innocent by the investigating agency but thereafter in pursuance to an application filed under section 319 cr.p.c, the father-in-law namely mani ram has been summoned as an additional accused. such order is a subject matter of challenge before this court in crm no.m-2493 of 2013 which is pending adjudication and proceedings qua mani ram i.e.father-in-law of the deceased have been stayed. the present petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned state counsel as also learned counsel appearing for the complainant by submitting that there are specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to illicit relations with some other lady. it is contended that the allegations are serious in nature and it is on account of the harassment meted out to neetu that she had no other option but to take the extreme step of ending her life. having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail. it has gone uncontroverted that the petitioner has been in custody since 7.11.2012. investigation in the case having been completed, the challan was presented on 4.1.2013. crm no.m-27938 of 2013 (o&m) -3- learned state counsel upon instructions from h.c jagtar singh would apprise the court that out of 16 prosecution witnesses cited only 3 have been examined till date. trial, as such, is still at the initial stage. even otherwise, it is by now well settled that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. a reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the hon'ble apex court in case of chitresh kumar chopra versus state (govt. of n.c.t of delhi).2009 (4) r.c.r (criminal) 196. the issue as to whether an offence under sections 306, 107 i.p.c would be made out against the present petitioner would be a moot point to be adjudicated upon during the cours.of trial. in the totality of circumstances and keeping in view the length of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, the present petition is allowed. bail to the satisfaction of trial court. petition disposed of. (tejinder singh dhindsa) judge june 30, 2014. lucky
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-27938 of 2013 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.6.2014.

Ashwani Kumar --Petitioner Versus State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.

Present:- Mr.I.P.S.Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.K.S.Sidhu, D.A.G., Punjab.

Mr.P.C.Chaudhary, Advocate for the complainant.

*** TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.J This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C praying for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R.No.170 dated 6.11.2012 under sections 306, 34 I.P.C, registered at Police Station, Lalru, District S.A.S.Nagar, Mohali.

The deceased in the present case is Neetu, who is alleged to have committed suicide on 6.11.2012.

The present petitioner is the husband of deceased and the F.I.R has been registered on the statement of her brother namely Davinder Singh.

As per prosecution version marriage between the petitioner and the deceased took place in September, 2000 and out of such wedlock two sons were born.

Allegations are that the relations between the husband and wife were not cordial primarily on account of two reasons i.e.the present petitioner allegedly having maintained illicit relations with another lady and secondly not providing money to the deceased so as to survive in the matrimonial home.

Further allegation is that on 5.11.2012 the deceased had made a call to her brother i.e.the complainant on his mobile Lucky 2014.07.01 16:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CRM No.M-27938 of 2013 (O&M) -2- phone at about 1/1.30 P.M and had disclosed that her father-in-law as also her husband, present petitioner had made her life miserable and she could not tolerate such situation any more and wanted to end her life.

It is against such factual backdrop that the criminal prosecution had been launched against the present petitioner.

It would be apposite to notice that father-in-law of the deceased, even though, had been found to be innocent by the investigating agency but thereafter in pursuance to an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the father-in-law namely Mani Ram has been summoned as an additional accused.

Such order is a subject matter of challenge before this Court in CRM No.M-2493 of 2013 which is pending adjudication and proceedings qua Mani Ram i.e.father-in-law of the deceased have been stayed.

The present petition has been vehemently opposed by the learned State counsel as also learned counsel appearing for the complainant by submitting that there are specific allegations against the petitioner with regard to illicit relations with some other lady.

It is contended that the allegations are serious in nature and it is on account of the harassment meted out to Neetu that she had no other option but to take the extreme step of ending her life.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at length, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of regular bail.

It has gone uncontroverted that the petitioner has been in custody since 7.11.2012.

Investigation in the case having been completed, the challan was presented on 4.1.2013.

CRM No.M-27938 of 2013 (O&M) -3- Learned State counsel upon instructions from H.C Jagtar Singh would apprise the Court that out of 16 prosecution witnesses cited only 3 have been examined till date.

Trial, as such, is still at the initial stage.

Even otherwise, it is by now well settled that in a case of alleged abetment of suicide there must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide.

A reference in this regard may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Chitresh Kumar Chopra versus State (Govt.

of N.C.T of Delhi).2009 (4) R.C.R (Criminal) 196.

The issue as to whether an offence under sections 306, 107 I.P.C would be made out against the present petitioner would be a moot point to be adjudicated upon during the couRs.of trial.

In the totality of circumstances and keeping in view the length of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, the present petition is allowed.

Bail to the satisfaction of Trial Court.

Petition disposed of.

(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) JUDGE June 30, 2014.

lucky