Criminal Misc. No. M-23534 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-23534 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 5.11.2009 Naresh @ Neshi .. Petitioner v. State of Haryana .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. G. S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Lamba, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 242 dated 14.6.2009, registered under Sections 306/323 IPC, Police Station, Kharkhoda, District Sonepat. The petitioner herein is husband of deceased Kavita, who had committed suicide on 14.6.2009. The petitioner was arrested on 17.6.2009. The marriage of the parties was solemnised on 30.4.2006. Even a child was also born out of the wedlock, namely, daughter Bhumbi, now aged about two years. The allegation in the FIR is that Kavita committed suicide on account of the fact that the petitioner was having illicit relations with some girl in the neighbourhood. Though it has also been alleged in the FIR that the deceased was regularly being harassed by the petitioner, however, specific instances have not been given. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the circumstances, which have been mentioned in the FIR, are not sufficient to nail the petitioner as an abettor to the suicide. This Court in State of Punjab v. Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and another, 2008(2) RCR (Criminal) 562 opined that merely because one of the spouse finds that the other is of bad character, case for abetment of suicide cannot be made out. There is no suicide note which could lead a finger of accusation against the petitioner. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner is guilty of a heinous crime. He had beaten his wife and because of his having illicit relations with some lady in the vicinity, his wife did not have any Criminal Misc. No. M-23534 of 2009 [2] other choice but to commit suicide. The petitioner is guilty of abetment. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that there is only allegation in the FIR regarding the petitioner's having illicit relations with some lady in the neighbourhood, as at the time of hearing, learned counsel for the State fairly submitted that during investigation, no material could be collected to substantiate this allegation and no previous history of harassment is there on record, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail pending trial. Accordingly, it is directed that the petitioner shall be released on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sonepat. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 5.11.2009 mk