IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) Nos. 473 and 525 of 2011 Date of decision: 04.08.2011 1. Cr.MP(M) No. 473 of 2011 Kamla Devi and another …. Petitioners Vs. State of H.P. ….. Respondent _________________________________________________________ 2. Cr.MP(M) No. 525 of 2011 Ravinder Kumar ..Petitioner Vs. State of H.P. ….Respondent Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. T.S.Chauhan, Advocate(in both the petitions.) For the Respondent : Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. A.G. with Mr. J.S.Rana, Asstt. A.G.(in both the petitions). : Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate, for the complainant. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This judgment shall dispose of Cr.MP(M) No. 473 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No. 525 of 2011 as both the applications have arisen from FIR No. 161 registered on 26.6.2011 at Police Station, Una, under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 IPC. In Cr.MP(M) No. 473 of 2011 the applicants are mother-in-law and brother-in-law(Devar) of the Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? yes deceased whereas in Cr.MP(M) No. 525 of 2011 the applicant is the husband of the deceased. The status report has been filed, record perused. 2. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants are innocent. They have committed no offence which is clear from alleged suicide note and dying declaration of the deceased. He has submitted that husband of the deceased is serving in North-East in Indian Army, who talked to the deceased on the fateful night on telephone but due to some defect in the connectivity, he could not complete the talk. The deceased took this incident very seriously and consumed something. She could not be saved despite best efforts and she died at PGI, Chandigarh. The learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the applicants have joined the investigation in pursuance of the interim order. No recovery is to be made from them. They are ready to furnish the bail bonds in case they are released on bail. The custodial interrogation of the applicants is not necessary in the facts and circumstances of the case. He has prayed for grant of bail to the applicants. 3. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. She has submitted that deceased married only on 11.3.2007. She had one male child from the marriage. In the normal circumstances, she had no reason to end her life. It is a case where deceased was compelled to end her life due to circumstances created by the applicants. She has prayed for the dismissal of the bail application. 4. Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate appearing on behalf of the complainant has submitted that the applicants are threatening the witness Dalip Singh, who is otherwise not related to the applicants. He has submitted that the police was approached immediately after the occurrence but the police did not register the case and with great difficulty the case could be registered on 26.6.2011. He has submitted that in case the applicants are released on bail, then they will not allow fair investigation in the case. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. I have gone through the alleged dying declaration of deceased Sudesh Kumari. It is signed by Joginder Lal, father, on it date has been given 23.6.2011. In the statement, it has been stated that she received a phone call from her husband at about 10.00 p.m. and all of a sudden his mobile was switched off and due to this reason she consumed some medicine in powder form which was in the house, she had no quarrel with anybody. It has been stated by the learned Additional Advocate General that alleged suicide note of the deceased has been sent for examination but the contents of the suicide note have been recorded in the recovery memo. I have gone through the relevant recovery memo in which it has been recorded that the deceased was responsible for her death, nobody is to be blamed. On account of mental tension, she committed suicide. 6. I do not want to comment on the merits of the case so that it may not adversely affect the case of either side. At this stage, it is suffice to observe that the applicants have joined the investigation in pursuance of the interim order. There is nothing in the status report to point out that the applicants are not co-operating in the investigation or they are terrorizing, threatening the prosecution witnesses. In these circumstances, the applicants have made out a case for grant of bail. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed. The applicants in Cr.MP(M) No. 473 of 2011 and Cr.MP(M) No. 525 of 2011 in the event of arrest in FIR No. 161 registered on 26.6.2011 at Police Station, Una, District Una, under Sections 498-A, 306, 34 IPC are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing personal bonds in the sum of 50,000/- each with one surety each of the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer with the condition that the applicants shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence or terrorize the prosecution witnesses in any manner. 7. The observations made in this judgment are for disposal of bail applications only and the same shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy Dasti. August 4, 2011. ( Kuldip Singh), (GR) Judge.