CRM No.M-26779 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.9.2010 Dharamjit Singh son of Jeevan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Rakesh Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Dharamjit Singh son of Jeevan Singh, has filed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.78 dated 5.6.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 306 and 120-B IPC, by the police of Police Station City Kapurthala, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the case of the prosecution is that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with Harjinder Kaur (deceased) about 13 years ago, prior to the present occurrence. There remains to be some dispute between them and the matter was got compromised by complainant Balwinder Kaur. The petitioner was stated to have compelled the deceased to sign the divorce papers, but she refused to oblige him. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution that Harjinder Kaur (deceased) committed suicide and petitioner abetted the commission of crime. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Balwinder Kaur, the present case was registered against CRM No.M-26779 of 2010 2 the petitioner, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 6. It is not a matter of dispute that the deceased committed suicide of her own and no overt act is attributed to the petitioner. Whether the penal provisions of section 306 IPC, would be attracted from the facts of the present case, will be the moot point to be decided by the trial Court. The petitioner was arrested on 8.6.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required to be further detained in jail for any purpose. As the charges have not been framed against the petitioner, therefore, the conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 7. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate or in his absence the Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala. 9. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 28.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge