Criminal Misc.No.M-19550 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc.No.M-19550 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision:-1.9.2009 Rajiv Pathak ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE L.N.MITTAL Present: Mr.Arvind Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Sidharath Sarup, AAG, Haryana. L.N.Mittal, J. (Oral): CRM No.43803 of 2009 Application is allowed. Amended bail petition along with Annxures P1 to P6 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CRM No.M 19550 of 2009 Rajiv Pathak has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No.413 dated 29.8.2008 under Section 306 IPC, Police Station Civil Lines, Karnal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The petitioner is husband of deceased Sonia. Their marriage was solemnized on 20.2.1999. Two sons were born out of the wedlock. However, the deceased was being harassed by the petitioner and his parents on account of dowry. The petitioner and the deceased also lived separately from the other family members of Criminal Misc.No.M-19550 of 2009 (O&M) 2 the petitioner but still she was being harassed. FIR was also lodged by the deceased against the petitioner and his parents. However, on account of settlement, the petitioner again started residing in the matrimonial home. Before her death, the deceased was residing with the petitioner in a separate house for about one year where also the mother-in-law of the deceased used to come oftenly and harassed her. Two brothers of the petitioner were also instigated the petitioner. On 28.8.2008 at about 7.45 P.M. the petitioner telephoned the complainant (brother of the deceased) threatening that the deceased be taken away, failing which she would be thrown out of the matrimonial home. Complainant tried to pacify the petitioner and also said that he would come to them next morning. However, during night itself at about 2.15 A.M., complainant was informed by the landlord of the rented house of the petitioner that Sonia had consumed poison and had been shifted to Trauma Centre, Karnal. The complainant accompanied by his maternal uncle went there. On seeing them, the petitioner slipped away from the hospital. Sonia had already died. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had filed a divorce petition in which compromise was effected. It was contended that the whole trouble was because the deceased used to talk with some one on telephone. However, learned State counsel contended that the deceased was being harassed continuously and even an FIR was lodged earlier regarding the said harassment. However, even after amicable settlement, the Criminal Misc.No.M-19550 of 2009 (O&M) 3 things did not improve. In addition to the aforesaid, learned State counsel contended that the deceased has left behind suicide note (Annexure P5) holding the petitioner to be responsible for her suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that something appears to have been added later on in the suicide note. However, even ignoring the alleged added portion, the deceased categorically stated in the suicide note that she was committing suicide on account of harassment by the petitioner. Keeping in view the aforesaid, but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. (L.N.Mittal) 1.9.2009 Judge AS