Crl. Misc. No. M-16808 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-16808 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: August 23, 2010 Jitender ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. RM Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharath Sarup, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Rajinder Sorolat, Advocate, for respondent No.2. GURDEV SINGH, J. Petitioner-Jitender son of Sh. Charan Singh, has filed this petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code for grant of anticipatory bail in Criminal Complaint No. 357 titled “Smt. Savita Versus Charan Singh and others” dated 1.3.2008, filed under Sections 302, 201, 506 and 120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, 1959 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), and pending in the court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Palwal, District Palwal. He has averred therein that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. Initially FIR No. 390 dated 4.12.2007 was registered in Police Station Sadar, Palwal, for the offence under Section 25 of the Act on the statement of his father Charan Singh. After the investigation, final report was submitted on 12.1.2008 to the effect that Crl. Misc. No. M-16808 of 2010 2 Dharmender deceased had committed suicide with the help of a country made pistol. Even during the post-mortem examination of the dead body, the cause of death was found to be shock and haemorrhage due to the injuries, which were caused with the help of fire arm. The report of the investigating agency was based on the material collected from the witnesses. On 1.3.2008, Savita-respondent No. 2, who is wife of the deceased, filed the above said complaint with the allegations that the deceased was shot dead by him with the help of a country made pistol and that the deceased was having illicit relations with his wife; namely, Kativa. On notice of motion having been issued, learned State counsel appeared for respondent No.1 and Shri Rajinder Sorolot, Advocate, appeared for respondent No.2-complainant. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that thorough investigation was conducted by the police regarding the death of Dharminder deceased and it was found to be a case of suicide. The complaint has been filed on false assertions that it was the petitioner who shot dead the deceased. Once the investigating agency has submitted cancellation report, the complaint itself is not maintainable. The petitioner is entitled to the benefit of anticipatory bail. On the other hand, it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that it was a case of murder and not suicide. The submission of the cancellation report by the police cannot be a ground for coming to the conclusion that the complaint is not maintainable. There is direct evidence against the petitioner regarding the commission of heinous crime of murder and he is not entitled to the anticipatory bail for such like Crl. Misc. No. M-16808 of 2010 3 offence. No doubt, the police submitted the cancellation report in the court after coming to the conclusion that Dharmender deceased has committed suicide but the same is no bar for filing a private complaint by respondent No.2/complainant, who is wife of the deceased. The complainant cannot be deprived of her remedy to file a private criminal complaint merely on the ground that some finding has been recorded by the investigating agency, contrary to the facts pleaded in the complaint. The finding of the investigating agency that the deceased committed suicide, cannot be a ground for extending the benefit of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, as it is very much clear from the facts and circumstances that it was not a case of suicide. After the death of the deceased, the post-mortem examination was conducted on his dead body and the following injury was found:- “Lacerated penetrating wound of size 2-1/4 inches x 1-1/2 inches x bone to brain deep over right parietal region of skull. Brain is damaged extensively. A foreign body (Metallic) has been recovered from left parietal region of skull, sealed, packed and handed over to police...” That injury was found to be ante-mortem, as a result of a fire arm and was sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Had the deceased committed suicide with the help of a fire arm, there was bound to be some blackening/charring around the wound, as a person shooting himself always fires the shot from a very close range. The absence of such blacking/charring around the wound itself rules out the possibility of suicide. Crl. Misc. No. M-16808 of 2010 4 It has been specifically contended by the complainant in the complaint that the deceased was having illicit relation with Kavita, wife of the present petitioner, and that was the motive on the part of the petitioner to kill him. It is also averred therein that the petitioner shot dead the deceased in the presence of the complainant. Thus, there is direct evidence against the petitioner regarding the commission of the offence of murder. The complainant has already suffered at the hands of the investigating agency, which converted the case of homicide to suicide. Keeping in view the heinous nature of the crime and the evidence available with the complainant, I do not find any ground for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The petition is dismissed accordingly. August 23, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE