IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-29377 of 2009 Date of decision : November 09, 2009 Sajida Begum alias Sahjda Begum ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. GN Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Criminal Misc. No. 56878 of 2009 The application is allowed and Annexures P/4 to P/7 are taken on record. Criminal Misc. No. M-29377 of 2009 Sajida Begum alias Sahjda Begum has filed this petition for anticipatory bail in case FIR No. 182 dated 27.8.2009 under section 306 read with section 34 IPC, Police Station City Malerkotla, District Sangrur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The instant FIR was registered on the statement made by Jagdish Kumar deceased himself wherein he alleged that the petitioner who is his neighbour in collusion with Pushpa Devi wife of the deceased Criminal Misc. No. M-29377 of 2009 -2- demolished the house of the deceased inspite of protest by the deceased leading the deceased to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that no portion of the house was demolished and only door was opened in the intervening wall of the two houses. It was also contended that the petitioner purchased portion of the house from Sanjay Kumar son of the deceased because the said portion had fallen to the share of Sanjay Kumar. Reference in this regard is also made to statements Annexures P/4 to P/7 made by Sanjay Kumar (also signed by his sister Dimple), Mohd. Ramzan, Abdul Shakur and Mohd. Shafiq. Learned counsel for the petitioner also referred to family settlement Annexure P/2 effected between the deceased and his two sons Ashwani Kumar and Sanjay Kumar. On the other hand, learned State counsel contended that some portion of the house has been demolished although entire house has not been demolished. I have carefully considered the rival contentions. The deceased himself named the petitioner being responsible for the suicide committed by the deceased. Family settlement Annexure P/2 relied upon by the petitioner reveals that under the said settlement, the house in question fell to the share of deceased and Sanjay Kumar jointly. There is no evidence of further settlement between the deceased and his son Sanjay Kumar, whereby some portion might have specifically given to Sanjay Kumar by the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner emphatically referred to the family settlement Annexure P/2 Criminal Misc. No. M-29377 of 2009 -3- but it does not show that Sanjay Kumar had got the specific portion of the house sold by him to the petitioner. This is case under section 306 IPC. The deceased himself made the dying declaration naming the petitioner, besides wife of the deceased himself, to be responsible for his suicide. Keeping in view the aforesaid but without commenting anything on merits, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) November 09, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'