IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.561 of 2008 Decided on: June 16, 2008. Kulwinder Singh. …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr Rajiv Jiwan, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R. No.68 dated 30.3.2008 registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una under Section 306 I.P.C. Status report has been filed by the respondent. 2. Heard and perused the record. The facts, in brief, are that on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of Bhajan Singh, the aforesaid F.I.R. was registered. Bhajan Singh in his statement has stated that deceased Bhupinder Singh was his nephew. Bhupinder Singh and about 25 boys of village Santoshgarh had paid Rs.50,000 each to Kulwinder Singh for going to some foreign country. Kulwinder Singh after receiving the amount absconded. The deceased had borrowed the amount from other Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… persons. On 30.3.2008 Bhupinder Singh had taken poison and died. Bhupinder Singh had borrowed the amount from other persons on interest and because of the conduct of petitioner Kulwinder Singh, Bhupinder Singh used to remain in constant tension. Kulwinder Singh even used to threaten Bhupinder Singh on telephone. In these circumstances, Bhupinder Singh committed suicide by taking poison and Kulwinder Singh is responsible for the suicide of Bhupinder Singh. 3. On behalf of the petitioner, it has been submitted that Bhupinder Singh committed suicide on account of his own family problems. It has been submitted that Bhupinder Singh by playing fraud with some persons took money from them and when those persons demanded money from Bhupinder Singh then under pressure Bhupinder Singh committed suicide. It has been submitted that petitioner has joined the investigation and he is still ready and willing to join the investigation in accordance with the directions of this Court. No recovery is to be made from the petitioner. The investigation in the case is almost complete. The allegations of payment of Rs.50,000 by Bhupinder Singh to the petitioner has been denied. It has been submitted that the petitioner never threatened Bhupinder Singh as alleged by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for grant of bail to the petitioner. 4. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application on the ground that the petitioner had taken Rs.50,000 from deceased Bhupinder Singh as well as from other boys also for sending them to some foreign country. The petitioner …3… by playing fraud took Rs.50,000 from deceased Bhupinder Singh as a result of which Bhupinder Singh was under great tension and he committed suicide. 5. The prosecution case in brief is that the petitioner took Rs.50,000 from Bhupinder Singh on false promise for sending him to some foreign country . This amount of Rs.50,000 was borrowed by Bhupinder Singh from other persons and he could not repay that amount to those persons. In these circumstances, Bhupinder Singh was under tension. As per prosecution, Bhupinder Singh committed suicide on account of tension, but it is to be seen whether such tension was attributable to the alleged payment made to petitioner or because of pressure of return of amount to the persons from whom deceased allegedly borrowed amount. The Investigating Agency has not recovered any documentary proof to show that the amount of Rs.50,000 was paid by Bhupinder Singh to petitioner nor it is the case of the prosecution that Bhupinder Singh had made any suicide note implicating the petitioner. The investigation in the case is almost complete. Report from the Chemical Examiner has also been received. According to which, Bhupinder Singh died of consumption of some insecticide. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and the petitioner, in the event of arrest, is ordered to be released on bail in F.I.R. No. 68 dated 30.3.2008 registered at Police Station, Haroli, District Una, under Section 306 I.P.C., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.10,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the condition that the petitioner shall join the …4… investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer and shall not hamper the investigation and tamper with the prosecution evidence in any manner. 6. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. Copy dasti, on usual terms. June 16, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)