Supriya Ranjana v. State Of Haryana
CRM-M No. 21076 of 2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CRM-M No. 21076 of 2017 (O&M) Date of decision : 20.9.2017 ...
Supriya Ranjana ................Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana .................Respondent 2) CRM-M No. 21284 of 2017 (O&M) ...
Jatin Batra ................Petitioner vs.
State of Haryana .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan Present: Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. D.R. Singla, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the complainant. ...
H. S. Madaan, J. (Oral) Vide this order I propose to dispose of two petitions for grant of pre-arrest bail, i.e. CRM-M-21076-2017 filed by Supriya
CRM-M No. 21076 of 2017 -2Ranjana and CRM-M-21284-2017 filed by Jatin Batra, both of them being accused in FIR No. 22 dated 30.4.2007 for offences under Sections 306, 34 IPC, registered with Police Station Gurgaon, District GRP, Ambala.
Briefly stated, facts of the case are that complainant Monika Batra w/o late Sahil Batra r/o Flat No. 901, Khusboo Apartments, Sector 9-A, Gurgaon, had been working as a teacher in Mothers Pride School, Sector 5, Gurgaon, whereas her husband was doing job in TJX Company, Gurgaon. On 29.4.2017, her husband did not return home till late night, therefore complainant made a call to him on his mobile phone. She noticed that her husband was under some fear, though he had stated that he would come home soon, but he did not return home till late night. On the next morning i.e. 30.4.2017, public told her that a body of a person was lying on the railway track. She rushed there and to her shock, found that it was dead body of her husband Sahil.
According to the complainant, Jatin Batra, a younger brother of her husband and two brothers were having property dispute. A number of cases involving the two brothers, their mother Neelam Batra, had been pending in Civil Courts at Panipat. Jatin Batra and his business associate, Supriya Ranjana used to harass the deceased Sahil Batra. In that way both of them have abetted suicide of Sahil Batra. After registration of FIR the matter was investigated. It came out that accused Supriya Ranjana had even sent threatening letter by way of courier to the deceased.
CRM-M No. 21076 of 2017 -3Court craving for grant of similar relief. Notice of the petitions was given to the State, which has put in appearance through State counsel. Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the complainant.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned State counsel, learned counsel for the complainant, besides going through the record of the case.
It is specific case of the complainant that her husband Sahil Batra deceased had committed suicide fed up with the harassment and threats given to him by his brother Jatin Batra and his business associate Supriya Ranjana. Though petitioners have pleaded innocence, saying that they have nothing to do with suicide by Sahil Batra. However, though they were granted interim bail vide order dated 2.6.2017 by this Court and they have joined the investigation also, but the Investigating Officer has stated that the petitioners have not rendered complete cooperation and have not handed over the relevant documents in their possession.
Learned State counsel has contended that custodial interrogation of the petitioners is essential to unfold the complete story, whereas contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioners are that petitioners are innocent and have got nothing to do with suicide committed by Sahil Batra; no suicide note is there and he had not made any dying declaration also; the petitioners have joined the investigation also, therefore, their custodial interrogation is not required.
After hearing rival contentions of learned counsel for the
CRM-M No. 21076 of 2017 -4parties, I find that there is no merit in the petition. Jatin Batra is none else but younger brother of deceased Sahil Batra. The two are stated to be locked in protracted litigation. Supriya Ranjana is also shown to be playing a negative role in the episode. As stated Supriya Ranjana and Jatin Batra had submitted several complainants to police against Sahil Batra. They are stated to have gone to the extent of disconnecting the electricity and water supply. Under these circumstances, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is must for complete and effective investigation. If the same is denied to the investigating agency, it may result in leaving many loop ends and gaps in the prosecution, which is uncalled for. Therefore, finding no merit in the petitions, the same are dismissed.
( H.S. Madaan ) Judge 20.9.2017 chugh Whether speaking / reasoned Yes / No Whether reportable Yes / No