Crl. Misc. No. M-26067 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-26067 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 12, 2011 Priyanka …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Pawan Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in a case registered at the instance of Naresh Kumar, alleging that the petitioner was married to his son Gaurav. Arti deceased was Gaurav’s sister. The petitioner had registered an FIR levelling allegations under Sections 406, 498A IPC against her husband Gaurav, father-in-law Naresh Kumar and sister-in-law Arti in which an attempt was made to arrest Arti, Gaurav and Naresh Kumar. Subsequently, Arti and Gaurav consumed poison. Crl. Misc. No. M-26067 of 2011 [2] Somehow, Gaurav was saved but Artie who was a widow died on account of consumption of poison. In the FIR, the complainant Naresh Kumar, father-in-law of the petitioner has alleged that the petitioner had refused to live with Gaurav and had insulted Gaurav and deceased Arti by taunting that Arti was a “dyan” she had killed her husband and in case she also died, the entire family could be saved, being perturbed by the comments of petitioner, the abovesaid Arti committed suicide. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was actually maltreated by her in-laws as such, had a legal right to prosecute her husband and other family members. State counsel informs that the FIR registered by the petitioner under Sections 406, 498A IPC has been found to be false and cancellation report stands prepared. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has been informed that a protest petition would be filed against the cancellation report in case it is presented. Counsel for the petitioner has also sought concession of pre-arrest bail on compassionate ground that the petitioner has delivered a child on September 9, 2011 as such she should be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. I have heard counsel for the petitioner and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. Prima facie, the words uttered by the petitioner against the deceased who was a widow, persuaded her to commit suicide. It will be premature at this stage to form an opinion that the said words will not constitute instigation or intentional aiding of persuading the Crl. Misc. No. M-26067 of 2011 [3] deceased to commit suicide to fall within the ambit of definition of Section 107 IPC and Section 306 IPC. The allegation of petitioner having been found to be false is also an additional factor to arrive at a conclusion that the act of the petitioner of levelling false allegations and making an attempt to get the entire family of her husband involved in the case, aided in the commission of suicide by the deceased. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. So far as petitioner having delivered a child or she being a lady, may constitute a good ground to get the concession of regular bail taking the benefit of proviso of Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C. Without prejudice to the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail, this petition is dismissed. December 12, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE