IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-12153 of 2010 Date of Decision: November 18, 2010 Krishan Kumar Sachar .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. R.S. Cheema, Senior Advocate, with Mr. R.K. Trikha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, assisted by Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for the complainant. . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. Petitioner No.1, Krishan Kumar Sachar (aged 60 years), father-in-law of deceased Saina; petitioner No.2, Smt. Sudha Sachar, mother-in-law; and petitioner No.3, Nidhi Sachar, sister-in-law, of deceased (Saina Sachar) have approached this Court in petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [2] bail in case FIR No.117 dated 12.3.2010 under Section 304-B IPC registered with Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. 2. Husband of the petitioner namely Sunishchai Sachar has also approached this Court by way of filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-12550 of 2010 which petition, however, has been withdrawn. 3. The facts are not in dispute as the sequence of events as given below has been admitted by learned counsel for the complainant who has addressed the Court. 4. Sunishchai Sachar (husband) got married to Saina Sachar on 28.4.2008 at Gurgaon. Deceased (Saina) went to Amritsar on 23.2.2010 and stayed there till the time of her death on 12.3.2010. Death of Saina was caused by hanging in a suicidal act on 12.3.2010 at Amritsar in her parental home. The FIR has been lodged on the statement of Dikshit Mehra, who is brother of the deceased. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while making a reference to the contents in the FIR, has highlighted that the FIR contains omnibus and vague allegations. Individual role of Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [3] the accused (four in number) has not been given. FIR does not disclose the date of departure of deceased (Saina) from Gurgaon to Amritsar. No concrete demand at the instance of either of the petitioners is reflected in the FIR. It has also been highlighted that after allegations of harassment immediately after marriage, FIR straightaway mentions the commission of suicide by Saina. 6. It has been vehemently argued, on the strength of the documents placed on record, that the FIR is palpably and ex-facie false in so much as Saina was not turned out of the house. 7. It has been brought out that at the time of marriage in the year 2008, Saina was only Bachelor of Arts (1st Year). Saina went to Amritsar during, approximately, the same period in 2009 to take her examination of B.A. Part-II, which she passed. 8. Examinations in 2010 were to be taken by her and therefore, tickets in Shatabdi Express were booked on 18.2.2010. The documents indicate withdrawal of amount from the account of petitioner No.2. The date for which ticket was booked, is 23.2.2010 when the deceased left Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [4] Gurgaon for Amritsar while boarding train from Delhi. On the strength of this fact, it has been stated that the circumstance that Saina was to take examination for B.A. Part-III and that ticket had been booked on 18.2.2010 for 23.2.2010 establishes that Saina was not turned out of the house, rather it was a voluntary and planned visit to Amritsar similar to earlier occasions in the earlier years. 9. It has been contended that relations between the husband and wife were harmonious. In this regard, reference has been made to photographs of the deceased. Particular attention of the Court has been drawn towards the photographs taken during the birthday of Saina i.e. three months before the incident; birthday of her son (Utkarsh) in January 2010; and of Lohri, to say that the photographs are in close proximity in time to Saina’s leaving for Amritsar. It indicates no strain in relations, rather healthy relations between husband and wife. 10. While referring to the pleadings, it has been contended that after marriage, Saina started showing odd behaviour, particularly Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [5] during the period of pregnancy. Under the circumstances, Saina was got examined by her husband in hospital in a medical facility in Kalyanpuri Hospital Private Limited, Gurgaon. Various prescription slips/ diagnosis/ out door patient slips ranging from June 2009 till January 2010 indicate that Saina was suffering from ‘Major Depressive Disorder’. 11. During the currency of the proceedings, the investigating agency was asked to verify the medical record. As per documents available on the investigation file, the concerned doctor has given a Certificate on 29.7.2010 to the effect “Mrs. Saina Sachar was under my care at out-patient level from 24.6.2009 to 25.1.2010. The certificate for the same was issued by me on 13.3.2010. I don’t keep/have any duplicate record of the same. She was suffering from Major depressive disorder. There was history of poor drug compliance”. 12. The certificate has been verified by the investigating officer (Sub Inspector Tarsem Lal) who is present in Court. Statement is available on the investigation file. Various certificates placed on record indicate that the Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [6] petitioner was advised to take medication for Major Depressive Disorder. The certificates also indicate that she had repeatedly stopped taking medicine. 13. On the strength of the documents, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that while the deceased was in Amritsar in her parental home, possibly she stopped taking medicines, as had been noticed on earlier occasions which caused the depression to over- take and resulted in her committing suicide. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also drawn the attention of the Court towards two Debit Card receipts which indicate that while in Amritsar, Saina withdrew ₹ 500/- on 26.2.2010 and another ₹ 500/- on 2.3.2010. It has thus been argued that even while Saina was in Amritsar, the husband of Saina was taking care of her needs and requirements. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn the attention of the Court towards SMSs exchanged between Saina and her husband during the period February 2010 and March 2010 i.e. before the incident which indicate that husband and wife were on very good terms and exchanging Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [7] pleasantry etc., which would not indicate any truth in the allegations made in the FIR. The last call made by the husband to Saina is recorded on 12.3.2010 at 2.00 PM. 16. Learned counsel has further argued that there is no documentary evidence by way of letter etc. from the deceased to indicate that Saina was at any point in time harassed for money. 17. Concluding the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that locker was in the name of Saina who operated it on 22.2.2010 i.e. one day before she left for Amritsar. No articles were found in the locker which indicate that all the jewellery articles were taken away by her before she left for Amritsar. In the same context, learned counsel contends that list of articles recovered are available on the record of the investigating agency which shows that no useful purpose would be served by incarceration of the petitioners. Investigation process would not be supported or enhanced by taking the petitioners in custody. 18. On the legal issue, learned counsel has argued that admittedly it is a case of Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [8] suicide after the deceased had stayed in her paternal home for about three weeks. During the entire period, neither the petitioners nor even the husband met the deceased and therefore, there was no occasion for them to cause harassment, as alleged in the FIR. 19. It has been argued that abetment to suicide for dowry invites provisions of Section 306 IPC read with Section 113-A of the Evidence Act and Section 498-A IPC. The prosecution, however, has invoked Section 304-B IPC i.e. dowry death viz. death of a woman caused otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and when it is shown that soon before her marriage, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband. In the case in hand, neither Section 306 IPC is attracted nor even provisions of Section 304-B IPC are attracted. The deceased was living in her parental home and had gone to take her exam for B.A. final year. She was not forced out of the house and she had travelled voluntarily for her purpose. 20. In the backdrop of medical record, there is not even an iota of material that can be Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [9] translated into legal evidence to show commission of offence, as alleged. In case the petitioners had any intention to cause dowry death, Saina would not have been sent to Amritsar where she was in a conducive and protective environment. In the conclusion, it has been argued that it is the loss of the husband who has lost her wife leaving behind one son. During the entire period of marriage, the husband has shown love, care and affection for the wife, as is made evident from the documents accompanying the petition. 21. Learned counsel for the complainant has specifically contended that existence of documents is not denied and not disputed. 22. Learned counsel for the complainant and Prosecution contend that FIR need not be an encyclopaedia. The ingredients of offence under Section 304-B IPC are made out. It has further been argued that supplementary statement was given by the complainant indicating demand of dowry by the husband and payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- to the husband. 23. On a pointed query of the Court, however, the prosecution has not been able to show any document to indicate withdrawal of Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [10] amount or payment of the amount by the complainant. Be that as it may, the allegation is in relation to non applicant. 24. It has been argued that harassment was caused by the husband who gave a call to the wife in Amritsar immediately whereafter she (Saina) locked herself in bathroom and committed suicide. It has been argued that depression occurred only after marriage on account of the circumstances created by the family of the husband. It has been contended that Saina was a bright girl which is shown from the fact that she was pursuing her studies through correspondence even after marriage. 25. I have considered the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record in detail. 26. It remains the admitted position that deceased was in her parental home from 23.2.2010 till 12.3.2010. The tickets for travel to Amritsar were booked on 18.2.2010 from the account of petitioner No.2. It is further an admitted fact that Saina went to her parental home in Amritsar to take her examinations of B.A. Part-III, having earlier taken exams after Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [11] marriage in the year 2009 for B.A. Part-II in correspondence course. 27. Individual role of the accused has not been given in the FIR, rather in supplementary statement, there is specific allegation against the husband non-applicant regarding demand of dowry and payment of ₹ 5,00,000/- to the husband. Husband is not the petitioner in this petition and has undertaken to surrender. 28. The medical history of Saina is also an admitted fact by the prosecution in view of certificate endorsed by the investigation officer on the investigation file. 29. During the period when the petition was pending, an objection was raised on behalf of the complainant that a child has been born, however, the petitioners are not taking custody of the child. The petitioners offered to take the child with the plea that they were always asking the complainant to give the custody of the child to the petitioners. Under the circumstances, custody of child (Utkarsh) aged 1 ½ years was given to the petitioners on 27.10.2010. Under the circumstances, the child is with the petitioners Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [12] who are the only persons to take care of the child while the husband would be in custody. 30. Petitioner No.3 is unmarried sister in law of the deceased. 31. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case and without commenting on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed. 32. It is directed that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be enlarged on bail on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer, subject to the following conditions:- “(i) The petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation as and when required; (ii) The petitioners shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person ac- quainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; and (iii) The petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court.” This order shall enure till 15 days after the filing of final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. within which period, the petitioners shall be re- quired to seek regular bail. (AJAI LAMBA) November 18, 2010 JUDGE Crl. Misc. No. M-12153 of 2010 [13] avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?