Crl. Misc. No. M-12210 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-12210 of 2011 Date of Decision: November 29, 2011 Vikrant @ Vicky …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Jitender Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of his wife. Petitioner has been in custody w.e.f. January 19, 2011 in a case of abetment of suicide. As per the allegations of the prosecution, a suicide note was recovered from the body of the deceased alleging that the petitioner is involved with another lady. As per the allegations in FIR he had been demanding more money as dowry. Crl. Misc. No. M-12210 of 2011 [2] Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the petitioner cannot be said to have committed the offence of abetment of suicide as in Shanti Vs. State of Haryana, 2008 (2) RCR (Crl.) 856, it has been observed that where a wife was not living chased life in accordance with the expectations of her husband and husband committed suicide, the wife could not be said to be guilty of abetment of suicide. I have considered the said judgment which has been delivered while deciding an appeal on appreciation of evidence. In the present case, the main witnesses are yet to be examined. In case the petitioner is released on bail, chances of tampering with the evidence are not ruled out as the witnesses are none-else but the close relations who can be influenced with the liberty of the petitioner. There are allegations of demand of dowry also in the FIR. No doubt, the age of the marriage being more than 7 years, offence under Section 304 B IPC could not be added but no opinion can be expressed at this stage whether the factor of demand of dowry also played a role in pressurizing the deceased to commit suicide. No ground is made out to grant the concession of bail at this stage. Dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court again after the recording of the evidence of the material witnesses. November 29, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE