CRM M-21381 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-21381 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.8.2009 Harbans Singh ....Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mrs.G.K.Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab for the State/respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioner has applied for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.88 dated 18.5.2009 under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Sadar Gurdaspur. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Rajwinder Kaur wife of Balkar Singh, who had stated that her daughter Sandip Kaur was engaged with Harbans Singh (petitioner). After the engagement, he used to call her and also demanded bullet motor-cycle or a car which was told by the deceased to the complainant many times. It was conveyed through Gurbhej Singh mediator and by the petitioner that if the demands are not fulfilled then the engagement shall be broken. Driven by these threats, Sandeep Kaur (since deceased) took some poisonous medicine and wrote a suicide note before her death in which allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. Before coming to this Court, the petitioner had applied for CRM M-21381 of 2009 (O&M) -2- anticipatory bail before the Court below, which was dismissed on 29.7.2009. Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been implicated in a false case as at the time of the occurrence, he was not present. It is also submitted that the allegations contained in the FIR does not constitute abetment. On the other hand, counsel for the State has argued that there is a categoric allegation against the petitioner by the deceased in the suicide note which has been read over in the Court. It is submitted by the counsel for the State that in Crl.M.No.16677 of 2009 titled as Kashmir Singh Vs. State of Punjab decided on 6.7.2009 while defending Kashmir Singh, it was argued by the counsel for the petitioner that as per the suicide note, the allegations are against Harbans Singh (petitioner). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record. Keeping in view the seriousness of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 19.8.2009 JUDGE Meenu