Crl. Revn. No. 2966 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Revn. No. 2966 of 2010 Date of decision : 31.03.2011 Monika and another .....Petitioners versus State of U.T. Chandigarh and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI Present: Mrs. Madhu P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. G.S. Chahal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 Mr. Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for respondent No. 3 **** RITU BAHRI , J. (Oral) Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 23.10.2010 passed by the ld JMIC Chandigarh on the bail application under Section 167(2) Cr.P.C moved by the accused/respondent No. 3 whereby the bail has been granted to the accused after the expiry of 60 days after presentation of challan. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the bail could not be allowed to the respondent No. 3 as the offence was Crl. Revn. No. 2966 of 2010 -2- punishable under Section 306 IPC and up to 10 years of fine. Therefore, the accused could be held in judicial custody for a period of 90 days and before the expiry of 90 days he could not be granted bail. She has further argued that law laid down in the case of Rajiv Chaudhary vs. State (NCT) of Delhi, 2001(5) SCC 34 has not been complied with while allowing the bail application of the accused. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As per provision of Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C, the accused could be detained for 90 days where the investigation relates to an offence punishable with death, imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years. The punishment under Section 306 IPC is as under:- Section 306- Abetment to suicide: if, any person commits suicide, whoever abets the commission of such suicide shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to ten years and shall also be liable to fine. The Supreme Court in Rajiv Chaudhary's case (supra) has interpreted the punishment as contemplated under Section 386 IPC which prescribes the punishment which may extend to ten years. It has also been held that punishment can very from minimum to maximum of 10 year and it cannot be read that imprisonment prescribed is not less than ten years. Hence the petitioner as per section 167 (2) Cr.P.C Crl. Revn. No. 2966 of 2010 -3- could not be kept under judicial custody for more than 60 days. The ratio of the aforesaid judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the present case as the accused could not be detained for more than 60 days, as the punishment prescribed under Section 306 IPC may extend to 10 years along with fine. Accordingly, the criminal revision is dismissed. (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE March 31, 2011 G.Arora