Sonu @ Sanmukh Singh v. State Of Punjab
-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 07, 2022 Sonu @ Sanmukh Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present:
Mr.Rishu Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Rakeshinder Singh Sidhu, AAG, Punjab.
........
RAJESH BHARDWAJ, J.(ORAL) Prayer in the present petition is for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in a case FIR No.59 dated 01.06.2021, registered under Section 306/34 IPC, at Police Station Qila Lal Singh, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.
As per the facts of the case, the present FIR was lodged by the complainant, namely, Nirmal Singh. It was alleged that he was married with Rajwant Kaur, who is working as a helper in Anganwari Department. She had to take Rs.3.00 lacs from Aman daughter of Jhirmal Singh and her brother Sonu and her mother Narinder Kaur about two years back, but they were not giving money. Whenever, his wife Rajwant Kaur demanded money from them, they used to insult her and send her back. On 30.5.2021, the complainant left for his duty and thereafter he came to know that his wife went to the house of Narinder Kaur alias Nindro and her daughter Aman and her son Sonu for taking money but they insulted her and rather told her that
-2like other people she should also die by taking medicine and refused to give money. Being upset, his wife committed suicide. It was alleged that Narinder Kaur @ Nindro, Aman and Sonu are responsible for the suicide of his wife. FIR was lodged for taking action against the culprits. Investigation commenced and a suicide note was also recovered by the Investigating Agency. The petitioner was arrested on 03.10.2021. The petitioner approached the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur praying for grant of bail, who after hearing the parties, declined the same vide its order dated 12.04.2022. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition for grant of bail.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR. He submits that in all there are three accused named in the alleged suicide note, namely, Sonu, Amanpreet Kaur and Nindro, but the investigating agency declared Amanpreet Kaur as innocent for the reasons best known. He submits that thereafter, Amanpreet Kaur has also been granted anticipatory bail. He submits that in view of the allegations made in the FIR, no offence under Section 306 read with Section 107 IPC is made out as simple refusal to give money would not constitute instigation under Section 107 IPC. He further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents and he has never been involved in any other criminal case.
He submits that even otherwise, the investigation stands completed and challan has already been presented and charges have also been framed, thus, the petitioner cannot be apprehended to have scuttled the investigation. He further submits that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Narinder Kaur @ Nindro, has already been granted the benefit of regular bail vide order dated 27.04.
-32022. He submits that in the overall facts and circumstances, the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail.
Learned State counsel has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioner. She submits that the suicide note was sent to the FSL and handwriting of the suicide note is duly matched with that of the deceased. However, he submits that challan has been presented and charges have been framed and now the case is fixed for recording of the prosecution evidence.
Heard.
The petitioner is behind bars since 03.10.2021. In the suicide note the petitioner has been named along with two other accused, in which co-accused Amanpreet Kaur was declared innocent by the Investigating Agency and she is already on anticipatory bail. Another co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Narinder Kaur @ Nindro, has also been allowed regular bail vide order dated 27.04.2022 passed in CRM-M-367-2022. The investigation already stands completed and charges have been framed. There is nothing on record showing that the petitioner has earlier been involved in any other criminal incidents. Though the allegations and counter allegations would be assessed by the trial Court on the appreciation of the evidence to be led by the parties before it, however, in the overall facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the opinion that learned counsel for the petitioner has been able to make out a case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
-4Nothing said herein shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
July 07, 2022 ( RAJESH BHARDWAJ ) meenuss JUDGE 1.
Whether speaking/reasoned ?
Yes/No 2.
Whether reportable ?
Yes/No