CRM-M No.9762 of 2011 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.9762 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 21.12.2011 Badan Singh ...... Petitioner v. State of Haryana and another ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Man Mohan Sikka, D.A.G., Haryana. Mr. Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate for respondent No.2. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (Oral) This petition has been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.10 dated 16.01.2011 registered under Sections 302, 328, 34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. On 31.03.2011, the following contention was noticed:- “Learned counsel has argued that in a case where both the parties have contracted second CRM-M No.9762 of 2011 (O&M) ::2:: marriage in middle age the allegation of murder/abetment to suicide cannot be taken to be probable.” Apart from that learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that since it was a case of aluminium phosphide poisoning Section 302 IPC has been removed and Section 306 IPC has been invoked in its place. As per learned counsel for the petitioner even if the general allegations of harassment as mentioned in the FIR are taken to be correct the obvious conclusion of Section 306 IPC would not have to be necessarily reached and it would have to be proved by the prosecution that the harassment was of such a order which left the deceased no other alternative but to commit suicide. As per the learned counsel, in this view of the matter till such time the prosecution brings home the guilt of the petitioner he should be protected from arrest. Learned counsel for the complainant has however argued that the fact that the deceased died an unnatural death in the house of the petitioner would tend to bring home the allegation of abetment of suicide. In my considered opinion, at this stage this would be a rather extreme conclusion. It is obvious that if the petitioner is found guilty of any offence he would be liable to undergo whatever punishment is imposed upon him, but at present his custody would not be in the interest of justice. Keeping in view the entire conspectus, I do not deem it appropriate to deny the concession of bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the petition is allowed. Petitioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 28.12.2011 between 10 A.M. to 04 P.M and on any other date as and CRM-M No.9762 of 2011 (O&M) ::3:: when his presence is required. On his appearance, the Investigating Officer would release him on bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 21, 2011 JUDGE ashish