CRM No.M-27647 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-27647 of 2011 Date of Decision: 27.09.2011 Kala Singh alias Baljinder Singh ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr. H.P.S. Ishar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Addl. AG, Punjab. M.M.S. BEDI, J. The petitioner seeks concession of pre-arrest bail in a case which was registered on the basis of statement made by Darshan Singh deceased to the police before his death alleging that he had purchased the Indica Car and his car had been engaged with Company by the petitioner for a sum of Rs.28,600 per month out of which Rs.13,000/- per month was to be spent on the fuel and Rs.5,000/- per month was to be retained by Darshan Singh as salary. The allegation against the petitioner is that the petitioner used to demand money from the deceased daily. Perturbed and threatened by the act of petitioner, the deceased consumed poison. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the act of the petitioner as alleged in the FIR does not fall under the definition of abetment under Section 107 IPC and cannot be said to be an abetment of suicide. He relies upon Paramjeetsingh Chawala versus State of M.P., CRM No.M-27647 of 2011 -2- 2007 CriLJ 3343 in which demand of loan from borrower by a person granting loan was held to be not falling in the act of abetment as given under Section 107 IPC. In the said case it was observed that the demand of loan amount itself does not prove a fact as to instigation made to deceased person borrower for commission of suicide. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and considered the judgment cited. In the said case, the order of framing of charge under Section 306 IPC was set aside by High Court of Madhya Pradesh. He has also placed reliance on Puneet Kumar Versus State of Punjab, 1999 (4) AICLR 475. In the said case a girl had committed suicide on account of her engagement with the petitioner in the said case having been broken. The petitioner was granted the concession of pre arrest bail, observing in the said case that deceased, after deciding not to marry and to go to Australia, had committed suicide after a lapse of 2, 3 months. The demand of money by the petitioner on telephone, prima facie did not constitute offence under Section 306 IPC. I have considered the judgments cited by counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that investigation is at initial stage. It cannot be opined at this stage whether the act of petitioner in harassing the deceased could be said to be an instigation or an act of intentionally aiding of committing suicide. This fact has to be considered in the light of the evidence gathered during the course of the investigation. No ground is made out to grant the concession of pre arrest bail. The petition is dismissed. The facts and circumstances in cases of Paramjeetsingh Chawala CRM No.M-27647 of 2011 -3- and Puneet Singh (supra) appears to be at different footing and not applicable to the facts of the case. Anything said in the order will not prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. It will be appreciated in case the bail application filed by the petitioner before the Court concerned after surrendering before the Illaqa Magistrate, is decided expeditiously. (M.M.S. BEDI) 27.09.2011 JUDGE manju