Crl. Misc. No. M-32054 of 2011(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M-32054 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: December 06, 2011 Balbir Singh and another ---Petitioners versus State of Haryana ---Respondent Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Sidharth Sarup, DAG, Haryana Mr. B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant *** Gurdev Singh, J. The petitioners-accused, Balbir Singh and Jaspal Kaur, have filed this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 267 dated 21.9.2011 registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC in Police Station City Mandi Dabwali, Sirsa. They have contended therein that their daughter Rajinder Kaur was married to Gurmeet Singh, deceased, in the year 2000 and both of them were working Crl. Misc. No. M-32054 of 2011(O&M) -2- as Government Teachers and living together in Mandi Dabwali since 2003. The deceased committed suicide on 15.6.2011 and the FIR was registered after more than three months on 21.9.2011. They have been falsely implicated, being the parents of widow of the deceased. At the time of inquest proceedings, the complainant was present but did not suspect any foul play regarding the death of the deceased and they come out with a concocted version at the time of lodging of the FIR. From the contents thereof, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out against them. They also contended that the deceased had two children and in the year 2003, complaint was filed against him by Rajinder Kaur under Section 406 and 498-A IPC. The matter was amicably settled and a compromise was entered into between them and thereafter, they had been residing together and there was no such harassment on their part or on the part of the wife. This FIR has been registered on the written application of Mohar Singh, father of the deceased, in which he has not denied that the marriage of his son was performed with Rajinder Kaur, daughter of the present petitioners, in the year 2000 and the lodging of criminal complaint by her against the deceased and other family members under Section 498-A IPC. He came out with the version that after the marriage, Rajinder Kaur lived with the deceased for a short time and thereafter started quarrelling with all of them and declared that she would take the deceased to Mandi Dabwali and they would reside at that place. Looking into his responsibilities, the deceased refused to shift to Mandi Dabwali. After that she quarrelled with them and came to her parents house and thereafter, filed the said criminal complaint and an application for maintenance under Section 125Cr.P.C.. To save the deceased from that false litigation, a Crl. Misc. No. M-32054 of 2011(O&M) -3- compromise was entered into and by practicing a fraud, it was got incorporated in the compromise that in case the deceased suffers physically or otherwise, she and her family would not be responsible for the same. After that compromise, the deceased went to Mandi Dabwali and started residing at that place. His in-laws started harassing him and that fact was mentioned in his diary, which he used to write daily. Those facts were also being disclosed by him whenever he had been coming to them. Whatever property or machinery was being purchased by the deceased, the same was got transferred by his in-laws in their own name. Even the house, in which the deceased had been residing with his family members, was purchased by him. He had entered into an agreement to purchase a plot and for getting the sale deed executed, he asked for financial help of Rs. 1,00,000/- from his friends. His wife had been pressing him to get the sale deed executed in her name and on that account, he used to remain under depression. His in-laws had been repeatedly pressurizing him to get the sale deed executed in their name. It was on account of that harassment that he committed the suicide. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that all the facts, which have been stated in the FIR were supposed to be in the knowledge of the complainant party at the time of death of the deceased as it is incorporated in the FIR itself that those facts were told by the deceased to them on the telephone and also at the time of personal visits to their house. If it is so, then why those facts were not stated at the time of inquest proceedings and at that time it was specifically stated by the brother of the deceased that there was no suspicion regarding the death of the deceased and they were not suspecting any one for that Crl. Misc. No. M-32054 of 2011(O&M) -4- death. It was after a period of three months that the FIR was got lodged and the intervening period has been used for concocting a false story. In fact, after the compromise was entered into between the deceased and his wife in 2003, both of them had been residing separately and happily in Mandi Dabwali. There is nothing on the record to conclude that the petitioners in any way abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased and as such they are entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. The first occasion with the complainant party to come out with such a version against the petitioners/accused was when the inquest proceedings had taken place in respect of the dead body of the deceased. During those inquest proceedings, statement of Hardeep Singh, brother of the deceased, was recorded and at that time he stated that he was not suspecting any one regarding the death of his brother. It was after about three months that the present FIR was got lodged and for the first time the complainant came out with above said version against the petitioners and the other accused. In the course of investigation, the diary, which the deceased used to write, was taken into possession. A perusal of the writings of that diary shows that his main grouse was against his own wife and not against the present petitioners. The possibility of concocting a version after due deliberations and consultations during the intervening period cannot be ruled out. Keeping in view the nature of accusation against the petitioners, it cannot be said that their custodial interrogation is required in this case. It is a case where they are entitled to the benefit of extraordinary remedy on anticipatory bail. The petition is accepted accordingly. In the event of arrest of the petitioners in the FIR, mentioned in the petition, they are Crl. Misc. No. M-32054 of 2011(O&M) -5- ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:- (i)They shall Join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer. (ii)They shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and (iii)They shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court. Whatever has been said, while disposing of this petition, shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merit of the case. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE December 06, 2011 PARAMJIT