IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-36111 of 2009 Date of decision : 10.3.2010 Manpreet Kaur …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent and Crl. Misc. No. M-36205 of 2009 Yadvinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. Manvinder Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. B.S. Makar, Advocate for the complainant. **** S.S. SARON, J. Vakalatnama filed by Mr. B.S. Makar, Advocate on behalf of the complainant in Court today is taken on record. Heard counsel for the parties. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-36111 of 2009 filed by Manpreet Kaur and Crl. Misc. No. M-36205 of 2009 filed by Yadvinder Singh as they arise out of the same FIR. Crl. Misc. No. M-36111 of 2009 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-36205 of 2009 The petitioners in the respective petitions seek pre arrest bail in a case registered against them on 23.10.2009 for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Gurpreet Singh (deceased). According to the complainant Gurpreet Singh (deceased), it is alleged that he had consumed insecticide tablets. There had been a quarrel between the complainant and his neighbour Yadvinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M- 36205 of 2009). Thereafter, a compromise had been effected. Despite, the compromise it is alleged by the complainant that he was being threatened because he had an affair with his neighbour Manpreet Kaur (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.M-36111 of 2009). For the said reason, he had consumed the insecticides tablets. Learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners has submitted that the allegations as made in the FIR do not disclose the commission of any offence on the part of the respective petitioners. It is submitted that there is no allegation that either of the petitioner instigated Gurpreet Singh (deceased) to commit suicide. A reference has been made to the provision of Section 107 IPC and on the strength of the same, it is submitted that to establish the offence of abetment to suicide it is necessary to show that the respective petitioners had instigated Gurpreet Singh to commit suicide by provoking, instigating or urging him by persuasion. However, there is no such allegation even. Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Satwant Singh, Police Station City Abohar has submitted in consequence of the interim orders granted by this Court on 21.12.2009, the petitioners Crl. Misc. No. M-36111 of 2009 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-36205 of 2009 in the respective petitions have joined the investigation and their custody is not required for the purposes of investigation. It is, however, submitted that the allegations are that the petitioners in the respective petitions had abetted the commission of suicide and therefore, in view of the death of Gurpreet Singh, the petitioners are not entitled the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the application. It is submitted that the petitioners are very powerful and they had clearly abetted the commission of suicide inasmuch as Gurpreet Singh (deceased) was rebuked and ridiculed for having an affair with his neighbour. Therefore, the petitioners in the respective petitions are not entitled for pre-arrest bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the allegations of abetment to commit suicide are to be established by leading evidence on record. At this stage, from the perusal of the FIR and the other material that has been placed on record, nothing has been brought out to show that either of the petitioners had abetted the commission of suicide. In Kishori Lal v. State of MP, 2007 (3) RCR (Crl.) 385 (SC), it was observed by the Supreme Court that abetment may be by instigation, conspiracy or intentional aid. The word “instigate” literally means to provoke, incite, urge on or bring about by persuasion to do anything. There must be proof of direct or indirect acts of incitement to the commission of suicide. Gurpreet Singh (deceased) is stated to be having an affair with Manpreet Kaur (petitioner in CRM No. M- 36111 of 2009) and on account of the same if he has committed suicide, it would require to be ascertained after evidence has been led Crl. Misc. No. M-36111 of 2009 and [4] Crl. Misc. No. M-36205 of 2009 whether there was an abetment or incitement on the part of either of the petitioners for the commission of suicide by Gurpreet Singh. The custody of the petitioners is admittedly not required for the purposes of investigations. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the interim orders granted to the petitioners in the respective petitions are made absolute. Consequently, the interim orders passed on 21.12.2009 in respect of the petitioners namely Manpreet Kaur and Yadvinder Singh in the respective petitions are made absolute. Crl. Misc. petitions stand disposed of. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 10, 2010 amit