IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-25525 of 2010 Date of decision: 22.11.2010 Nirmal Chand @ Nimma .. Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab and another .. Respondents Present:- Mr.H.P.S.Aulakh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate for the Complainant-respondent No.2. * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner Nirmal Chand alias Nimma seeks pre- arrest bail in a complaint case (Annexure P-1) filed by the complainant- respondent No.2 Gian Chand alleging the commission of offence under Section 306 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). According to the complainant Gian Chand (respondent No.2) FIR No.231 dated 11.09.2006 for the offences under Section 306 IPC was registered against the petitioner Nirmal Chand alias Nimma at Police Station Banga. The petition filed by the petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nawanshahar and was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court. Crl. Misc. No.M-25525 of 2010 ::2:: It is alleged by the complainant that Manjit Kaur (deceased) was his daughter. The marriage between Manjit Kaur was settled with Jagtar Singh son of Ram Asra, resident of village Khanpur. Karnail Singh son of Gurdail Singh and Lehmber Singh, Ex-Sarpanch were the go between to the marriage. Kuldip Singh, resident of village Khanpur also played an active role in the settlement of the marriage between Manjit Kaur and Jagtar Singh. The accused (petitioner), it is alleged somehow came to know of the settlement of the marriage between Manjit Kaur and Jagtar Singh, which was to take place on 24.09.2006. Ram Asra, father of Jagtar Singh and Jagtar Singh were approached by Nirmal Chand (petitioner), who persuaded them that they should not go ahead with the marriage with Manjit Kaur as she had undesirable relations with him (petitioner). The petitioner also threatened Jagtar Singh and his father-Ram Asra that they should be ready for the consequences that may ensue on account of the solemnization of the marriage. Jagtar Singh and Ram Asra, it is alleged, got frightened from all this and on 10.09.2006, they met Karnail Singh and Lehmber Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and narrated the story as stated by Nirmal Chand (petitioner). He had threatened them to break the engagement and not to marry Jagtar Singh with Manjit Kaur. On the same day, Karnail Singh and Lehmber Singh, Ex-Sarpanch came to the house of complainant-Gian Chand and in the presence of his wife and daughter-Manjit Kaur, narrated the entire story. Manjit Kaur got depressed and informed the complainant and her other family members that Nirmal Chand (petitioner) Crl. Misc. No.M-25525 of 2010 ::3:: was telling a lie. The family members of Manjit Kaur tried to console her. However, she did not say anything. But on the next day, she took ‘sulphas’ and she told the complainant and her other family members that after her engagement with Jagtar Singh had broken, she did not want to live and she had taken some poisonous substance. The complainant and her other family members took Manjit Kaur to hospital at Banga so as to provide her medical treatment but she died. Ram Asra also made a statement regarding the entire incident. Now, Jagtar Singh and Ram Asra had returned abroad. Therefore, according to the complainant, suicide that had been committed by his daughter-Manjit Kaur was abetted by the petitioner-Nirmal Chand. In respect of the allegations FIR No.231 dated 11.9.2006 (Annexure P2) was registered on the statement of Gian Chand. The Police after investigation, found that no offence was made out against the accused and filed a cancellation report. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the complainant filed complaint (Annexure P-1) alleging the commission of an offence under Section 306 IPC. The complainant is to prove and establish his case by leading evidence. The custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigations as a cancellation report has been filed by the Police. Learned counsel for the complainant has, however, submitted that during the investigation of the FIR, the petitioner had filed an application for pre-arrest bail, which was dismissed twice. However, it is thereafter that an enquiry (Annexure P3) was conducted by Dr. Sukhchain Singh, Assistant Superintendent of Police, Crl. Misc. No.M-25525 of 2010 ::4:: Phagwara. In the said enquiry, it is submitted, that the statements of Balbir Kaur, wife of Ram Asra was also recorded. She stated that no one had come to them for breaking the engagement. According to the learned counsel for the complainant, however, Jagtar Singh and Ram Asra have not appeared before the Investigating Officer. Be that as it may, the complainant is to establish its case by leading evidence. It is to be established as to whether the petitioner abetted the deceased-Manjit Kaur to commit suicide or not. The Poice filed a cancellation report. The same, it is stated, is pending consideration. Keeping in view the fact that the custoy of the petitioner is not require for investigation and it is to be established whether the petitioner had abetted the commission of suicide, it is would be just and expedient to gant pre-arrest bail. In the facts and circumstances, the interim bail granted to the petitioner on 23.9.2010 is made absolute. The Crl. Misc. petition stands disposed of. November 22, 2010 (S.S. SARON) Sukhpreet/amit JUDGE