CRM No.M-31192 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 26.10.2010 Sudesh Kumar .. Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Dhruv Dayal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J. (Oral) Petitioner-Sudesh Kumar son of Dharam Chand, has instituted the instant petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely Saroj Devi etc., by virtue of FIR No.67 dated 10.09.2010 for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station GRP Ambala Cantt., invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C. 2. The epitome of facts, which need a necessary mention for deciding the core controversy involved in the present petition, is that on 23.07..2010, Satish Kumar Bagri, husband of Saroj Devi (co-accused of the petitioner) committed suicide. He left a hand-written suicide note and also executed a will few days before his death, inter alia alleging therein that he was committing suicide owing to illicit relations of his wife-Saroj Devi with petitioner Sudesh Kumar and others. In pursuance of the complaint of complainant-Dhanpat Bagri, father of the CRM No.M-31192 of 2010 2 deceased, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner described hereinabove, in which, the petitioner has sought the concession of anticipatory bail. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4 After hearing learned counsel for the parties, after perusing the record and considering the matter deeply, to me there is no merit in the instant petition. 5. However, the celebrated arguments of learned counsel that petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case, he did not have any connection either with the Saroj Devi or the deceased and as the deceased committed suicide on account of non-payment of loan taken by him, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, are devoid of merits and not tenable in this regard. 6. What is not disputed here is that the Police recovered a detailed hand-written suicide note of the deceased, wherein he has specifically mentioned that recently he came to know that his wife is having illicit relations with petitioner-Sudesh Kumar and several other persons, for which, he got mentally upset and ultimately decided to finish his life. It is not a matter of dispute that the deceased had executed a Will dated 07.07.2010 i.e. about 15 days prior to his death as well, wherein he has also described that his wife Saroj Bagri is a lady of bad character. She has involved herself in prostitution. No man can tolerate this. He desired that the amount to be received from LIC policy, may be divided into three parts, in equal shares. One share of the amount be given to his father D.P. Bagri, one share to his elder brother and the remaining share be given to his daughter Khushi alias Lumayaka (irrespective whether DNA test proves it or not). He appointed his brother Suresh Bagri as a guardain of his children. Not only that, he has also written a letter to the Manager, LIC of India dated 14.07.2010, by virtue of which he changed his nomination from his wife to his father in this context. CRM No.M-31192 of 2010 3 7. Therefore, if all the indicated allegations of suicide note, Will and letter for the change of nomination, are put together then prima facie conclusion is inescapable that illicit relation of the petitioner with his wife compelled the deceased and he actually committed suicide in this relevant connection. Keeping in view the seriousness of the allegations alleged against the petitioner, to me, the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required to enable the Investigating Agency to unearth the scandal and to elicit complete truth in the matter. 8. The anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of course in all cases. The grant or refusal of such bail depends on the variety of circumstances, the cumulative effect of which, should enter the judicial verdict. The power under Section 438 Cr.PC is to be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases keeping into focus the facts and circumstances of each case. The order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation of the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational power of the police, in exercising the judicial discrimination in granting the anticipatory bail. The Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby. 9. Moreover, the application for anticipatory bail (CRM No.M-28508 of 2010) of Saroj Devi, co-accused of the petitioner, has already been dismissed by this Court, vide order dated 12.10.2010 under similar circumstances. 10. Accordingly, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, nature and gravity of the accusation emanating from the record, as discussed hereinabove, to me, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in this relevant connection. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of CRM No.M-31192 of 2010 4 trial, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 12. Needless to state that, nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) JUDGE 26.10.2010 AS