Crl. Misc. No. M – 36130 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 36130 of 2009 Date of decision:- 4.3.2010 Tek Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been filed by Tek Singh- petitioner/accused for releasing him on bail for the offence under Section 306/34 IPC in respect of which FIR No. 104 dated 21.9.2009 was registered in Police Station Kotwali, Nabha, District Patiala. This FIR was got registered by Rajinder Singh brother of Ranjit Singh-deceased, who was married to Pardeep Kaur-daughter of the present petitioner. He came out with the version that there was difference of much age between the deceased and the daughter of the present petitioner and in- laws of the deceased always thought this to be unmatchable marriage. The deceased was not happy with them and had been living separately with his wife Pardeep Kaur. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on Crl. Misc. No. M – 36130 of 2009 -2- 1.7.2008 from drain. The deceased used to tell him that he was being followed by unidentified persons and threats were being given by his in- laws to kill him. It was also being disclosed by the deceased that the petitioner, alongwith his wife and her brother, had been given beatings to him. The deceased had filed a divorce petition in which it was pleaded that an attempt was made by Pardeep Kaur to kill him with the help of Kerosene and that he narrowly escaped from the said attempt made by her. It was also pleaded by the deceased that in the month of August 2004, he was poisoned by the petitioner in order to get rid of them. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there was long standing dispute between the deceased and his wife and the settlement was arrived at between them on 18.4.2004. Still the wife did not opt to live with the deceased and he was forced to file a petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. Though the death of the deceased came to the light on 1.7.2008 and inquest proceedings took place in the presence of his close relations, still the FIR was lodged after more than a year. On the other hand, it was submitted by learned State counsel that the investigation is still in progress and during the investigation sufficient material has been collected to conclude that the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. However, he has not referred to any such evidence so collected during the investigation. It is an admitted fact that the dead body was found in the drain on Crl. Misc. No. M – 36130 of 2009 -3- 1.7.20008 and inquest proceedings were taken in the presence of Joginder Singh, who is maternal uncle and Harpreet Singh, who is nephew of the deceased and is the son of the complainant himself. At that time they never came with any such story as has been given in the FIR. It was on 21.9.2009 that the complainant came up with the above said version. This delay is very material and it gave an opportunity to the complainant to make deliberations and consultations in order to give colourful version. The agreement referred by the learned counsel for the petitioner is infact an affidavit which was sworn by the deceased on 18.4.2004 and copy of which has been filed along with the present petition. The contents of that affidavit itself suggests that it was the deceased who was on the wrong side and had undertaken to improve himself. He pleaded a number of acts of cruelty in the divorce petition, copy of which was produced at the time of arguments. It is also mentioned therein that he was deserted by Pardeep Kaur on 27.11.2004. There was a long gap of three years between that date and the death of the deceased. In these circumstances it cannot be held that the acts of cruelty so committed by Pardeep Kaur and pleaded in the divorce petition instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Moreover no such fact or act was pleaded in that divorce petition. Therefore, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner committed the offence mentioned in the FIR. In the result, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, subject to the following conditions:- Crl. Misc. No. M – 36130 of 2009 -4- (i)he shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (ii)he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court. March 4, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge