Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150394
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
204 CRM-M M No.40820 of 2024
Date of decision: 18.11.2024
BALJEET KAUR AND ANOTHER …. Petitioners
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB …. Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present : Mr A.S. Barnala,, Advocate for the petitioner
Mr. petitioners.
Mr. Rubal Pawar, A.A.G, Punjab.
****
MANISHA BATRA,
BATRA J. (oral)
1. Prayer in this petition has been made by the petitioners for grant
of pre-arrest
arrest bail in case arising out of FIR No.98 dated 29.07.2024 registered
under Sections 108, 351(3) and 3(5) of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 ((for
for
short-‘BNS’) at Police Station Dhanaula, District Barnala.
2. Brief facts of the case relevant for the purpose of disposal of this
petition are that the aforementioned FIR was registered on the basis of a
written complaint filed by the complainant-
complainant Balo
Baloure
re Singh alleging therein that
his son-Gurdas
Gurdas Singh was married with petitioner No.2
No.2-Navdeep
Navdeep Kaur in the
year 2015. After some time of their marriage,
marriage, quarrel
quarrels took place between
them and petitioner No.2 left for her parental home. She was convinced to
come back by the intervention of Panchayat. In the year 2020 also, she left her
matrimonial house and got a case qua demand of dowry registered again
against her
husband, her father-in-law
father and mother-in-law.. Trial of that case was going on
at Dhuri Courts. She had filed other cases as well against son of the
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2024 14:16:46 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150394
CRM-M
M No.40820 of 2024 -2-
complainant.. On
O 27.07.2024, the petitioners made a telephonic call to the son
of the complainant and told him too either give a sum of `21
21 lacs or share in the
land owned by him or otherwise threatened to get him punish
punished. His son was
mentally disturbed due to this reason and on the same night, he consumed
some poisonous substance. He was rushed to the hospital but died on
28.07.2024. While disclosing that his son had recorded a video before
consuming poisonous substance,
substance accusing the petitioners of abetting suicide
committed by him, he prayed for taking action in the matter. On his complaint,
a case under Sections 108, 351(3) and 3(5) of BNS has been registered.
Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners moved an application for grant of
anticipatory bail before the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Barnala which
was dismissed vide order dated 07.08.2024.
3. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioners that they have
been falsely implicated in this case. The ingredients for commission of
offences which have been levelled
levelled against them are not made out even from
the allegations in the FIR. No specific overt act had been attributed to them.
There is nothing on record to suggest
suggest that they abetted or instigated the act of
suicide by the victim. In fact, petitioner No.2 was a victim at the hands of the
deceased and had filed cases against him. The petitioners are ready to join the
investigation. Their custodial interrogation is not required. No useful purpose
would be served by detaining them in custody. Therefore, it is urged that the
petition deserves to be allowed.
4. Status report has already been filed by the respondent
respondent-State.
State. It is
submitted therein and learned State counsel has argued that there are specific
and serious allegations against the petitioners who harassed the victim to such
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2024 14:16:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150394
CRM-M
M No.40820 of 2024 -3-
an extent that he was compelled to end his life. The victim recorded his dying
declaration before his death wherein he had held the petitioners responsible for
his suicidal death. Prima facie, a case for commission of offence of abetment
to commit suicide has been made out against the petitioners. Their custodial
interrogation is required for thorough investigation in the matter. Therefore, it
is urged that the petition does not deserve to be allowed.
5. I have heard learned
lear counsel for the parties at considerable length
and have carefully gone through the record..
record
6. The victim Gurdas Singh had died due to cons
consumption of some
poisonous substance. As per the allegations, his suicide was abetted by the
petitioners who are his mother-in-law
law and wife respectively. Admittedly,
petitioner No.2 had been residing separately from the victim ffor quite some
time. The prosecution has collected a pen drive containing two videos stated to
have been recorded by the victim in his mobile phon
phonee just after consuming
some poisonous substance. As per the prosecution
prosecution, the victim had recorded that
petitioner No.2 and her parents were responsible for his death and therefore, as
he had consumed poisonous substance on being harassed by them. The said
video recording has been sent to the Forensic Laboratory for testing purpose
and reports are still awaited. It is a debatable question as to whether even on
believing the video recording to be genuine,, a case for commission of offence
for abetment of suicide
suicide has been made out or not? It is not a case where any
recovery is to be effected from the petitioners. Their custodial interrogation is
not required. Their presence can be secured even otherwise also. Keeping in
view the nature of allegations as levelled
levelled against the petitioners and as per the
discussion made above, I am of the considered opinion that the petition
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2024 14:16:47 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:150394
CRM-M
M No.40820 of 2024 -4-
deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the same is allowed and the petitioners
are ordered to be admitted to bail subject to surrendering before the
Investigating Officer/Arresting Officer within a period of 115 days from today
and subject to their furnishing personal as well as surety bonds to the
satisfaction of Arresting Officer/Investigating Officer
Officer.. They will also join
investigation as and when required subsequently and shall comply with
following conditions:-
conditions:
i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available
for interrogation before the Investigating Officer as
and when required;
ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly,
rectly,
make any inducement, threat or promise to any person
acquainted with the facts of th
thee case so as to dissuade
them from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any
police officer ;
iii) that the petitioners shall not leave the country, without
prior permission of the Court and shall surrender
their passports,, if any
any.
7. It is, however, clarified that observations made hereinabove shall
not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case
case.
(MANISHA BATRA)
18.11.2024 JUDGE
Jyoti-IV
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 09-12-2024 14:16:47 :::
