Jaspal Singh @ Bittu v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 12.01.2024 JASPAL SINGH @ BITTU ....Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :

Mr. N.S. Kamboj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.

PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.74 dated 05.11.2023 registered for the offences punishable under Section 306 IPC at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot.

2.

As per the contents of the FIR it has been alleged as under : "xxI am resident of the above said address and a housewife. My marriage was solemnized with Varinder Singh son of Jaspal Singh about three years back. I am having one son named Mandeep Singh aged about 21⁄2 years. My husband's younger brother my brother-in-law named Deedar Singh aged about 20 years. My brother-in-law Deedar Singh who is +2 qualified and presently was working along with my husband as a labour. My brother-in-law was having due with Rs 6000/- from Jaspal Singh @ Bittu son of Satpal Singh and Kirpal Singh @ Bheema son of Satpal Singh resident of Bazigar Basti Faridkot. That yesterday on dated 04.11.2023 at about 11:30 A.M. My brother-in-law

Deedar Singh has gone on motorcycle to take the money from them, thereafter Deedar Singh has come back at about 02:30 PM. At that time my family had gone to Jand Sahib Mandi for labour job and I was alone in the house. Deedar Singh was very much disturbed and he has told me that I had gone to the Bazigar Basti to Jaspal Singh @ Bittu son of Satpal Singh and Kirpal Singh @ Bheema son of Satpal Singh both are brothers, to take my money from their house but they have not given me my Rs 6000/- and after insulting and beating has kicked out of the house. Thereafter, I myself also had gone along with my brother-in-law Deedar Singh on motorcycle to Bazigar Basti to take Rs 6000/- back.

Jaspal Singh @ Bittu and Kirpal Singh @ Bheema was present in their house in the Bazigar Basti Faridkot to whom I said, brother, give back our money, then they had not listen to me and after sometime they had started bad language with us and also had given slap to my brother-in-law Deedar Singh. On this I said to my brother-in-law that they will not give anything to us, this may happen that they will give more beating to us, we should go from here. Thereafter, I along with my brother-in-law Deedar Singh has come back to our house at Sadiq at about 04:00 PM. Where I was busy in my work and my brother-in-law has gone to his room.

Thereafter about 10 min, my brother-inlaw Deedar Singh has told me after coming out of his room that he had taken poison on having harassed by Jaspal Singh @ Bittu and Kirpal Singh @ Bheema and I am feeling some bad. On this I along with my mother-in-law Kuldeep Kaur, who at that time came back, by arranging the vehicle has got admitted Deedar Singh to GGSMH Faridkot in emergency ward. During treatment my brother-in-law Deedar Singh had expired. That my brotherin-law Deedar Singh had committed suicide after taking poison being harassed by Jaspal Singh @ Bittu and Kirpal Singh @ Bheema resident of Bazigar Basti Faridkot. Legal action may be taken against them. Statement has got recorded in presence of my husband Varinder Singh. Read over and it is correct. Sd/.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner submits that even if the contents of the FIR are taken on their face value it will be highly debatable as to whether the same would constitute abetment to suicide as defined under Section 306 IPC. Petitioner is behind bars for more than 2 months and 6 days. Investigation already stands concluded and challan stands presented thus there can't be any apprehension that the petitioner shall tamper with the evidence.

4.

State Counsel is not in posititon to dispute the factual assertions made by counsel for the petitioner based on record. 5.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.

6.

Without commenting on the merits of the case, keeping in view the incarceration already suffered by the petitioner and the fact that the investigation already stands concluded and Challan stands presented, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

7.

Needless to say that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. January 12, 2024 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No