Joginder Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-32552-2021 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-32552-2021 Date of Decision: 16.08.2021 Joginder Singh ......................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab........................................................... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL ...

(through video conferencing)

Present:

Mr. A.S.Manaise, Advocate for the petitioner.

....

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) Prayer in the present petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 46 dated 14.06.2021 under Sections 306, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

Inter alia contends that the petitioner, a 70 year old man, has been falsely implicated in the instant case for allegedly abetting the suicide of his daughter-in-law on 14.06.2021. Further submits that the petitioner had no role to play in the life of his daughter-in-law and son (co-accused) as he and his wife were separate in mess. While inviting the attention of this court to the contents of the FIR in question (Annexure P1) the learned counsel submits that only general allegations of harassment have been levelled against the petitioner. He further submits that even if the allegations RUPINDER KAUR 2021.08.17 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document levelled in the FIR are taken to be true, it could not be construed to be an act

CRM-M-32552-2021 [ 2 ] of abetment of suicide as the deceased had a number of legal remedies available to her instead of ending her life. A prayer has been made to extend the concession of anticipatory bail as the basic ingredients of abetment under Section 107 IPC and Section 306 IPC are amiss in the case in hand. Heard the learned counsel and perused the record. A perusal of the contents of the FIR in question reveals that despite sufficient dowry having been given to the deceased at the time of her marriage, she would be subjected to continuous harassment. The complainant tried many a times in vain to counsel the accused i.e. his sonin-law and the petitioner to mend their ways and on one occasion even gave money for purchase of a motorcycle.

The deceased would, as per the allegations, also be pressurized by the accused to get the payment for their electricity bills. The contention of the learned counsel that the petitioner was separate in mess and had no role to play in the life of the deceased cannot be considered at this stage in view of the specific allegations levelled against him.

In view of the above, no ground for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made out. The petition is dismissed. ( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 16.08.2021 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No RUPINDER KAUR 2021.08.17 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document