Cr.Misc. NO. M 8984 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Cr.Misc. NO. M 8984 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION 20.4.2009 Pawan Kumar ......PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana ......RESPONDENTS PRESENT: Mr. R.S. Rai,Sr.Advocate with Mr. Karan Pathak, Advocate. Mr. SS Goripuria, DAG, Haryana. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of father of Rajesh Kumar, who had committed suicide by consuming poison on 31.1.2009. As per the allegations of the complainant, Rajesh Kumar was a labourer where as the petitioner used to visit the deceased. The petitioner Pawan Kumar was involved in a criminal case i.e. FIR No. 4 of 2009 u/s 454,380 IPC registered at the instance of Pardeep Kumar ( complainant in the said case) alleging that the petitioner had committed a theft of Rs.25 lacs. The deceased had allegedly been threatened by the petitioner that he should not disclose anything about the theft to the complainant Pardeep Kumar in FIR No.4 of 2009, otherwise he would be killed. The allegation against the petitioner is that he had made Rajesh Kumar deceased to call Pardeep Kumar to pay a sum of Rs. 5 lacs to him for supplying the information regarding the theft. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as a matter of fact the matter in FIR no.4 of 2009 has been compromised after Cr.Misc. NO. M 8984 of 2009 2 the parties having arrived at a conclusion that no theft of Rs.25 lacs had been committed from the house of Pardeep Kumar complainant. There was another case regarding a girl Anchal having gone with Ashok (cousin of Pawan Kumar). The said matter has also been compromised. It has further been contended by the counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner, on the basis of a fabricated suicide note, has been falsely implicated in the case. It has not till date been reported by any Forensic Laboratory that the said suicide note had actually been written by Rajesh Kumar deceased. Referring to the contents of the suicide note, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even if the suicide note is presumed to be correct, the act of the petitioner, in any manner, does not fall within the definition of abetment if seen in context to Section 107 IPC. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the police file and the alleged suicide note purported to have been written by Rajesh Kumar, deceased. As per the suicide note, the petitioner had alledgedly threatened to kill the deceased. No opinion can be expressed at this stage regarding the mental state of the deceased when he was threatened but the circumstance that he was threatened, seems to have aided Rajesh Kumar to commit suicide. Whether the said threat can fall within the definition of abetment cannot be decided unless until the said allegation is corroborated by other evidence and circumstances. Some telephone numbers are also mentioned in the suicide note. I have considered the argument of Mr. R.S. Rai that Rajesh Kumar deceased was asked to call Pardeep Kumar to pay a sum of Rs.5 lacs to supply him the information regarding the theft, being not a circumstance to constitute abetment for suicide but no opinion can be expressed regarding the conduct and the act of the petitioner as the investigation is at initial stage. The petitioner had already been involved in Cr.Misc. NO. M 8984 of 2009 3 two other criminal cases. The contents of the suicide note can also not be brushed aside. In view of the above, no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed. Nothing said in the order will prejudice the right of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail. April 20 ,2009 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE