Cr.Misc. M 37059 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 37059 of 2009 Date of decision:- 15.2.2010 Anita and another petitioner vs State of Haryana. Respondent Present: Mr. Ashit Malik, Advocate. Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Hry Mr. BalKaran Singh, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioners seek the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Bimla alleging that her son Rajesh, who was married to petitioner No.1 on 17.4.2006 committed suicide, being tired of petitioner No.1 and her brother ( petitioner No.2). The complainant has stated that the deceased had called Sonu and the complainant on 29.9.2007 and 30.9.2009, respectively and told that being tired of his wife Anita and brother-in-law Bijender he consumed poisonous tablets. The allegation of the complainant is that on account of harassment, which was being caused by the petitioners, her son had committed suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner No.1 is a female and has got a two years old son to look after and that the necessary ingredients of abetment of suicide, if seen in context to the provisions of Section 107 IPC , are not made out. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, he is a student and is nothing to do with the family dispute of Cr.Misc. M 37059 of 2009 2 the deceased. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the police file, I am of the opinion that the investigation is at initial stage and some material has already been gathered by the investigating agency to the effect that petitioner No.1 did not have cordial relations with the deceased as well as with the complainant but the said circumstance cannot be considered to have motivated the complainant to lodge an FIR. The allegation of the complainant that on the day of suicide her son called her on her mobile phone No. 9991032180 to tell her that, being fed up with petitioner No.1 and petitioner No.2 he had consumed poisonous tablets, cannot be disbelieved. It will not be appropriate to assess, at this stage, whether any act and conduct of petitioner No.1 would fall under “instigation, engaging in conspiracy and intentional aiding by any act or illegal omission “, which had persuaded the deceased to commit suicide. In view of the investigation to the effect that there had been a dispute in the family on account of the conduct of petitioner No.1, I do not find any extra- ordinary exceptional circumstances to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioner No.1. So far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, there being vague allegations against him regarding abetment, he can be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Petition qua petitioner No.1 Anita is dismissed. However, petition qua petitioner No.2 Bijender Singh is allowed and it is ordered that in case of arrest of the petitioner No.2, he will be admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the condition that he will appear before the investigating officer as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation at any stage. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioners, may Cr.Misc. M 37059 of 2009 3 constitute a good ground for grant of regular bail to petitioner No.1. In case petitioner No.1 surrenders before trial court/ Illaqa Magistrate, her application for bail will be considered expeditiously by court of competent jurisdiction and nothing said in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioner No.1 to seek regular bail. February 15 ,2010 (M.M.S.BEDI) TSM JUDGE