CRM-M-37401 of 2010 (O&M) - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-37401 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:13.10.2011 Amrit and others . . .Petitioners Versus State of Punjab . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.S.S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.A.S. Rai, DAG, Punjab. Mr.S.C. Jindal, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.107 dated 07.02.2008 under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Kotwali, District Bathinda in which the petitioners have been summoned by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bathinda vide his order dated 13.3.2010 passed under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.). Learned counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that petitioners No.1 to 3 are the brothers and petitioner No.4 is the father of one Jasvir Kaur, who got married to Balvir Singh (since deceased) on 6.9.2002. Jasvir Kaur already had two children from her earlier marriage whereas Balvir Singh performed the 3rd marriage with her and had a son from her. Balvir Singh committed suicide on 6.2.2008 i.e. after more than 6 years of his marriage and allegedly left behind a suicide note dated 1.10.2007 (Annexure P-4). The petitioners applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below during the investigation of the FIR but the CRM-M-37401 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - same was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge on 4.4.2008. They applied for pre-arrest bail before this Court vide CRM-M-26993 of 2008 which too was dismissed on 03.12.2008 in which the relevant observations were “the Investigation, is at the preliminary stage. The very investigation, shall be hampered and impeded, in case, the accused-petitioners are released on anticipatory bail. Even otherwise, anticipatory bail is an extra-ordinary remedy, which can be invoked, in exceptional circumstances”. Thereafter, the enquiry was conducted in which the petitioners were exonerated on 27.3.2009 (Annexure P-1). This led to filing of the application by the complainant under Section 190 Cr.P.C. in which petitioners have been summoned vide order dated 13.3.2010. The petitioners then applied for pre-arrest bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed on 17.11.2010 (Annexure P-3). Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the learned Court below while summoning the petitioners vide order dated 13.3.2010 has not appreciated document (Annexure P-4) which is coloured as suicide note though it appears to be the last will of the deceased in which he had alleged that if something happens to him then the petitioners would be responsible but there is nothing which could be said to be the cause of abetment for committing suicide. He has relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of “M.Mohan Vs. The State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police” 2011(2) RCR (Criminal) 272 in which the bride had committed suicide after four days after taunt having been given by her jathani for not bringing car. It was held by the Supreme Court that mere taunt for not bringing car could not be attributed to the cause of abetment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that since the names of the petitioners appeared in the document (Annexure P-4), therefore, they are directly connected in the offence committed under Section 306 IPC. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioners are directed to appear before the Court below on or before 21.10.2011 CRM-M-37401 of 2010 (O&M) - 3 - and on their furnishing bail bonds they shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Court below. The petition is disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 13, 2011 JUDGE Vivek