CRM -M No. 34036 of 2009 Sukhwinder Singh vs. State of Punjab Present: Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Mehar Deep Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr.A.S.Kakkar, Advocate and Mr.K.S.Kahlon, Advocate for Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the complainant. *** This is a petition for anticipatory bail , filed by husband of the deceased in a case bearing FIR No.389 dated 21.09.2009, under Sections 306, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar. Learned counsel has argued that the parties were married for 13 years and that there are two minor children. Further that the petitioner took all possible steps to save his wife and took her to the best hospital available but unfortunately her life could not be saved. She has further argued that even earlier the deceased had exhibited suicidal tendencies. She has further argued that the whole motive for lodging this FIR is that the mother of the deceased now wants Rs.20 lacs. She has relied upon Sanjay Dhillon v. State reported as 2008(1) RCR(Criminal) 93. In that case there was a suicidal note in which, along with the husband,other members of the family had been implicated. Learned Judge relied upon some reported judgments wherein in such cases ultimately persons were acquitted. In my opinion the prayer for anticipatory bail cannot be equated with an order which may ultimately be passed after a full blown trial. She has also relied upon a judgment of this court in State of Punjab v. Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and another reported as 2008(3) RCR(Criminal) 562. That was a case wherein the husband had committed suicide and the suicidal note had stated CRM -M No. 34036 of 2009 -2- that he was driven to suicide because of the bad character of his wife and in that case the wife was discharged. In a revision filed against the discharge this Court held that conduct of the wife could not be said to have abetted or incited the suicide of the husband. In the present case I find that as per the allegations it was not merely illicit relations of the husband which had driven the woman to suicide but also the fact that the husband used to flaunt his mistress and openly consort with her in the presence of his wife. In my opinion this action of the petitioner, if proved, would entirely distinguish the case from the facts which were found in the two cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner. In the circumstances I find no error in the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge declining the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE December 23, 2009 sunita