Criminal Misc. No. M-19262 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-19262 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.7.2011 Jasmeen alias Pinky and another .. Petitioners v. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. R. S. Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. The petitioners in the present case are accused in FIR No. 149 dated 28.3.2011, under Sections 306, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station, City Sangrur. Petitioner No. 1 is wife of the deceased, whereas petitioner No. 2 is deceased's mother-in-law. The deceased was serving as Head Constable in Punjab Police. He committed suicide by shooting himself with his Service Carbine. The complaint was lodged by the first wife of the deceased. Even suicide note signed by the deceased was also recovered pointing finger towards the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that petitioner No. 1 is 8-1/2 months' pregnant from the lions of the deceased and petitioner No. 2 (mother-in-law of the deceased) is living separate in her matrimonial home. In fact, the deceased was having strained relations with his first wife as even she got the maintenance payable to her fixed through Criminal Misc. No. M-19262 of 2011 [2] court. The first marriage was solemnised in 1988 and no child was born. The marriage with petitioner No. 1 was solemnised on 21.7.2000. A daughter was born on 19.6.2008 and the second child is in the womb. The allegations in the suicide note or the complaint filed by the first wife of the deceased with the police are totally false as the deceased was not owning any property. In fact, petitioner No. 1 along with her deceased husband was living in a rented accommodation. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that hand-writing in the suicide note recovered from the house where the complainant was living, has been matched with his hand-writing in the official files and it is found to be matching. The house is owned by the father of the deceased. The first wife is living in that house, whereas the deceased along with petitioner No. 1 and their daughter were living in the rented accommodation. Considering the fact that specific allegations have been made against the petitioners in the suicide note of the deceased and the complaint, on the basis of which FIR has been registered, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as petitioner No. 1-Jasmeen alias Pinky is concerned, she is entitled to the benefit of pre-arrest bail merely on the ground that she is 8-1/2 months' pregnant. At this stage, this court would not like to keep her in custody. Even if the Investigating Officer has to ask any question to her, he will visit her home and ask the question, if any, at her convenience. As far as petitioner No. 2-Rano is concerned, in my opinion, even her custodial interrogation is not required considering the fact that the house regarding which the dispute is sought to be raised in the FIR by the first wife of the petitioner is, in fact, in the ownership of the father of the deceased and not the deceased himself and the complainant, first wife of the deceased, is living in that house and not petitioner No. 1, second wife. For the reasons mentioned above, the pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners on 29.6.2011 is made absolute. Criminal Misc. No. M-19262 of 2011 [3] The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 18.7.2011 mk