Crl.Misc.No.M-16927 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-16927 of 2010. Date of Order: July 29, 2010. Parvinder Kaur @ Sukhbir Kaur .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab. .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, DAG., Punjab. Mr.Sanjiv Pandey, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner apprehends arrest in a case registered at the instance of Amar Nath alleging that the petitioner and her family members are responsible for the suicide committed by his son Baljinder Singh. The allegation against the petitioner is that she had left the company of the deceased and was staying with her parents. She had filed a complaint under the provisions of Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short 'the Act') and on 10.02.2010 she had called the deceased to her . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-16927 of 2010 house for compromise but Baljinder Singh was forcibly administered organo phosphate along with alcohol, as a result of which he died. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the deceased Baljinder Singh had committed suicide on account of having been shabbily treated and threatened by the petitioner and her family members. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no doubt the petitioner had filed a complaint under the Act and was staying with her parents but the said circumstances are not sufficient enough to constitute abetment warranting punishment for offence under Section 306 IPC. It is claimed that no offence is made out under Section 306 IPC or 302 IPC. He further contends that at the time of death during inquest proceedings, no complaint was made by the father of the deceased but it was on subsequent occasion after consultation that the FIR was registered against the petitioner and her family members. Learned counsel for the complainant has intervened to contend that though the occurrence was of 10.02.2010, and there was sufficient material to book the petitioner and Sukhjant Singh for offence under Section 302 IPC, but the police in connivance with the petitioner and her family members did not register any case. The complainant lodged protest by holding dharna, as a result of which the FIR was registered on 08.05.2010 under Section 306 IPC. He further contends that there are specific allegations against the petitioner and her family members and . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-16927 of 2010 Sukhjant Singh to the effect that the deceased had been administered poison along with alcohol. In view of the allegations, it is claimed that the petition for pre-arrest bail should be dismissed. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, State counsel and the counsel for the respondent, at length, and have gone through the police file. During the course of investigation, it transpired that the petitioner had a matrimonial dispute with the deceased and as such, she has been staying with her father on the day of occurrence. As per the report of the police, the petitioner had contacted the deceased on her telephone No.99158 11313 to the 98785 92013 and 97818 35713, at 8:32, 8:34, 8:36, 8:44, 8:56 and 9:00 A.M. Pursuant to the conversation between the petitioner and her husband, the deceased thereafter committed suicide as organo phosphate poison was detected. The various statements recorded during investigation are indicative of the fact that the deceased had died after having been fed up with the conduct of the petitioner. The investigation is still in progress. Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has contended that there is sufficient evidence available indicating that the deceased had been forcibly administered poison. It will be pre-mature, at this stage, to form an opinion whether it is a case under Section 302 IPC or 304 IPC. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that offence of abetment is not made out on the basis of . . . 3 Crl.Misc.No.M-16927 of 2010 the investigation conducted and the statements of the witnesses recorded. It cannot be said that the petitioners had not instigated or intentionally aided the commission of act of suicide by the deceased. The circumstance may warrant the grant of regular bail to the petitioner being a lady as per the proviso to Section 437 (1) Cr.P.C., but no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. Police file be returned. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 29, 2010. rka . . . 4