IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos. 624 and 631 of 2011 Date of decision: 24.08.2011 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 624 of 2011 Susheel Kumari and others …. Petitioners Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent _________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 631 of 2011 Kamlesh Kumari ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate (in Cr.MP(M) No. 624 of 2011 and Mr. Suneet Goel, Advocate (in Cr.MP(M) No. 631 of 2011.) For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G.(in both the petitions). Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No. 624 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No. 631 of 2011 both having arisen from FIR No. 127 of 2011 registered on 2.6.2011 at Police Station, Haroli, under Sections 306, 34 IPC. Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes 2. In Cr.MP(M) No. 624 of 2011 it has been stated that petitioners were arrested on 15.6.2011. The petitioners have been falsely implicated in the controversy by a few inimical persons who instigated the police against the petitioners and, therefore, the petitioners have been named accused in the case. The case has been registered on the basis of complaint of Smt. Rita Devi w/o late Sukhdev Rai. According to the petitioners, Smt. Rita Devi has alleged that her husband had taken loan from Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, Panjawar for construction of house. Some money out of the loan was spent by the deceased on the marriage of his brother Jaswinder Rai. Whenever deceased demanded the money back from Jaswinder Rai, he started quarrelling with the deceased and owing to this reason, deceased committed suicide. 3. The story put forward by the investigating agency does not inspire confidence. The petitioners are innocent, they have committed no offence. Their custody amounts to their conviction before trial. There is no likelihood of petitioners jumping the bail. The petitioners are ready to furnish bail bonds in case they are released on bail. 4. It has been stated that earlier Cr.MP(M) No. 417 of 2011 was filed in this Court which was dismissed. Thereafter, bail application was filed in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Una which was rejected. The learned Sessions Judge dismissed the bail application in view of earlier rejection of bail application by this Court. The learned Sessions Judge has not appreciated that the earlier bail application filed in this Court was for anticipatory bail. 5. There is no one in the family as petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 being wife and husband are behind the bars so also petitioner No.3, who is the father of petitioner No.2. There are school going children in the age group of 6 years and 4 years in the house. The prayer has been made for releasing the petitioners on bail. 6. In Cr.MP(M) No. 631 of 2011 it has been stated that the petitioner was arrested on 15.6.2011 and since then she is in custody. The petitioner is the mother of Smt. Susheel Kumari, petitioner No.1 in Cr.MP(M) No. 624 of 2011. The veracity of the alleged suicide note of the deceased is yet to be established. The suicide note is highly suspicious which has been introduced from nowhere. The complainant Smt. Rita Devi, herself has executed affidavit on 2.6.2011 that she does not suspect anybody in the suicide of her husband. 7. The petitioner is resident of Chandigarh located at a distance of 135 KMs from Panjawar where deceased along with complainant was residing. The allegations against the petitioner are highly improbable. The petitioner is aged woman and she has been falsely implicated. It has been stated that continuous detention of the petitioner is not required in the case. The petitioner has earlier filed some bail applications in this Court and in the Court below which were either dismissed or withdrawn as stated in para 12 of the bail application. The petitioner has prayed for grant of bail. 8. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail applications on the basis of status reports which have been filed in both the petitions. It has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that challan has been filed in the Court below on 12.8.2011. 9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the police file. The case was registered on the basis of statement of Smt. Rita Devi recorded under Section 154 Cr.P.C. She has stated that her husband had taken loan of Rs.3,50,000/- from Kangra Central Cooperative Bank, out of which, he had spent some money on the marriage of Jaswinder Rai his brother who used to quarrel with her husband whenever her husband demanded money from him. One house was given to Jaswinder Rai. The deceased due to ill treatment of the accused committed suicide. She has further stated that suicide note of her husband is correct. 10. I have gone through the alleged suicide note dated 31.5.2011 of deceased Sukhdev Rai. In the suicide note it has been stated that life of deceased had become meaningless and blamed Jaswinder Rai, Susheel, Kamlesh Kumari and Dhanna Singh for the suicide. In the status report investigating agency has stated that the deceased had spent loan amount on the construction of the house, on the treatment of his father and on the marriage of Jaswinder Rai. He left no money and could not return the loan amount nor got any portion of the house. On the contrary, he always got rebukes from the accused and therefore, he consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide leaving behind suicide note. The trial Court will consider the suicide note. At this stage the deceased has named Jaswinder Rai and Dhanna Singh besides other petitioners in the suicide note. 11. It appears that for reasons best known to the complainant she has sworn an affidavit dated 2.6.2011 alleging therein that she has no suspicion on anyone nor she wants legal action against anyone. The affidavit dated 2.6.2011 indicates that some interested persons are working behind the curtain. The copy of the affidavit dated 2.6.2011 has been filed in Cr.MP(M) No. 624 of 2011.The affidavit dated 2.6.2011 indicates that even though investigation has been completed and challan has been filed but still strict vigil is required in the case so that the accused are not in a position to influence prosecution witnesses in any manner. 12 Susheel Kumari and Kamlesh Kumari have also been named in the suicide note, but both of them being women are entitled to special treatment for the purpose of bail in view of Section 437 Cr.P.C. In these circumstances, the petitioners Sushil Kumari and Kamlesh Kumari have made out a case for grant of bail whereas the bail applicants Jaswinder Rai and Dhanna Singh have failed to make out a case for grant of bail. 13. In view of above discussion, Cr.MP(M) No. 624 of 2011 so far Susheel Kumari is concerned, is allowed so also Cr.MP(M) No. 631 of 2011. Susheel Kumari and Kamlesh Kumari are ordered to be released on bail in FIR No. 127 of 2011 dated 2.6.2011 registered at Police Station, Haroli, under Sections 306, 34 IPC, on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of ` 25,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with the condition that Susheel Kumari and Kamlesh Kumari shall not tamper with the prosecution evidence or overawe the prosecution witnesses in any manner. Cr.MP(M) No. 624 of 2011 pertaining to applicants Jaswinder Rai and Dhanna Singh is dismissed. 14. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail applications only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti. August 24, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.