Harwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 24.05.2022

1. CRM-M-21508-2022 (O&M) Harwinder Singh ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent

2. CRM-M-21512-2022 (O&M) Suman ... Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN

Present:

Ms. Manpreet Ghuman, Advocate for the petitioner (in both cases).

Mr. Joginder Pal Ratra, DAG, Punjab.

******* ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL) Prayer in both these petitions is for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners Harwinder Singh and Suman, in FIR No.60 dated 16.03.2022 under

-2Section 306 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Samana, District Patiala. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that as per allegations in the FIR, registered on the statement of Kala Singh, his son Satnam Singh has committed suicide and he named his wife Sangeeta, mother-in-law Saroj, brother-in-law Saleem and his wife Manisha, other brother-in-law Somi, sisterin-law Suman (petitioner) wife of Harwinder Singh and her husband Harwinder Singh (petitioner). It is further stated in the FIR that marriage of deceased Satnam Singh was performed with Sangeeta about 09 years ago and they had two children aged about 08 years and 05 years, however, Sangeeta used to quarrel with Satnam Singh on the instigation of her family members and about 04 years ago, she had gone to her parental village, leaving the children. Due to this reason, Satnam Singh remained depressed and on 15.03.2022, he consumed salfas tablets because of aforesaid reason. He was taken to the hospital, where he could not survive.

Learned counsel further submits that though a suicide note is recovered, in which it is only mentioned that persons named in the suicide note are responsible for his death, however, there is no specific allegation against any of them. It is also submitted that Saroj, Saleem and Manisha have been arrested and Manisha has already been granted the concession of regular bail. It is next submitted that both the petitioners are husband and wife and they are residing at a distant place i.e. Village Madanheri, Tehsil Samana, District Patiala and had no role in matrimonial discord of deceased Satnam Singh and Sangeeta and they have been named only because of their relationship with Sangeeta.

-3Learned State counsel, assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and on instructions from ASI Paramjit Singh, has, however, submitted that the petitioners are named in the suicide note, however, it is not disputed that in the suicide note, only names of the persons are mentioned responsible for his death.

On a Court query, learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for the complainant could not dispute that prior to committing suicide, deceased Satnam Singh had not given any complaint to the police with regard to maltreatment by his in-laws and there is no MLR with regard to the incident, as mentioned in the FIR, to show that he was ever given beatings by his in-laws. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, without commenting anything on merits of the case and looking into allegations against the petitioners, who are residing at a distant place, it will be a matter of trial whether they acted in such a manner, which abetted deceased Satnam Singh to commit suicide, both these petitions are allowed and petitioners Harwinder Singh and Suman are granted the concession of anticipatory bail subject to the conditions envisaged under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. A photocopy of this order be placed on file of connected case. [ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ] 24.05.2022 JUDGE vishnu Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No