Crl. Misc. No.M-7273 of 2010 (O & M) ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-7273 of 2010 (O & M) Date of decision: 02.08.2010 Harpreet Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Gaurav Chopra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.V.P.S.Sidhu, AA.G., Punjab. Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate for the complainant. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 21.07.2009 for the offence under Sections 306/34 IPC at Police Station Sudhar, Ludhiana. The petitioner was married to Raghvir Kaur (deceased) on 07.10.2008. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Surjit Singh (father of Raghvir Kaur-deceased and father-in-law of the petitioner). According to the complainant, the petitioner and his wife Raghvir Kaur after their marriage on 07.10.2008 had left for Mumbai. It is alleged that the daughter of the complainant namely Raghvir Kaur (deceased) was being harassed and tortured by her in-laws. She informed the complainant that the petitioner had illegal relations with other girls; besides he was habitual in gambling. Therefore, he was harassing the daughter of the complainant. Najar Singh (father-in-law), Kulwant Kaur (mother-in-law) besides Harmeet Kaur (sister-in-law) of his daughter Crl. Misc. No.M-7273 of 2010 (O & M) ::2:: Raghvir Kaur were harassing her. On 15.07.2009, at 6.45 pm, the petitioner had called Raghvir Kaur on her phone number. The wife of the complainant namely Harminder Kaur was present with Raghvir Kaur at that time. The petitioner informed the wife of the complainant that he would re- marry. Raghvir Kaur took the phone from her mother-Harminder Kaur and talked to the petitioner. Then all of a sudden, she held her head in her hand and sat down. The complainant and his wife-Harminder Kaur got busy in domestic work and Raghvir Kaur quitely left the house. They made enquiries thereafter and came to Ballowal canal of their village. They had been searching for her dead-body, which was found on 21.07.2009. Raghvir Kaur being fed up with her in-laws, had committed suicide by jumping into the canal near the old bridge. It may be noticed that Raghvir Kaur had died in the house of her parents. The allegations against the petitioner are that he had telephoned her on 15.07.2009 at 6.45 p.m. and informed the wife of the complainant that he would re-marry. The question whether the petitioner indeed has abetted the commission of suicide is required to be gone into and considered after evidence has been led. In consequence of the interim bail granted on 22.03.2010, the petitioner has joined the investigation. Learned counsel for the State and the complainant, have, however, contended that the SIM card used in the mobile-phone of the petitioner has not been recovered till date. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the SIM card has been lost and the number has been allotted to somebody else. Therefore, the records thereof cannot also be obtained. It may further be noticed that the call details, the particulars of which have been given by the service provider of the mobile- Crl. Misc. No.M-7273 of 2010 (O & M) ::3:: phone, are available. Keeping in view the nature of allegations and also the question as to whether the petitioner had been abetted the commission of suicide by Raghvir Kaur is to be considered and gone after evidence has been led. Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the interim bail granted on 22.03.2010 is made absolute. Accordingly, this criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of and the interim bail granted on 22.03.2010 is made absolute. August 02, 2010 (S.S. SARON) sukhpreet JUDGE