Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanjiv Chopra And Another v. State Of Punjab


 


 

 
   


!

"#$#%&
 '
()*+

 
  

    
    &
 ,-
./
. 


.
  


 !"#  

"



!""$!  %%% 

.
+

0-1& &     
# '()   *  + ,-  .

/ ,- 0 1  #
 
#  19.05.2024 Phool, District Bathinda (Punjab) 306/34 of IPC, 1860 2

##          ,- . *       #   +    #    4* 
*    5678272'

* *   3


*  #  *.

 ## 4    
  
   "    27/28+# !

.  289(7!7779/   &    +

  ## 4    * #  *      . #   :* 5;78272'!&  .



 # 

 *

*  .

        #/##      *       #  *

. #.

   +<#

* .

  !  . *+ 5)78272'!#      #:.

 +     .+:* . #   

. +  !.  #/## 

   : +  *# * # 

 " *   ,- !  *  # *       .+  "  *  

 

!           #  *     " 
  4 *!3 . #. 

   2(78272' ( &   +  *           *   +   
#     +      +

 #  #-#! # 

.    2!2)!7779/ #  

 * +   2= 7575272("  # . ># +    * " #  +  

.!

  !     # + + . #.#    & #    + ?>#   # *.     + # .   #   #   <5;78272'!#/ ## !&   #  #   +

    *.

#/## *  -  *   
# (7@-

 #  #& # #

 >+

5;78272(  0   +  .              .     +

 * 

  + # &+ +       *   &

 #   

*       A

 &  !   *   . 4.

Vide order dated 30.05.2024, the petitioners were directed to join the investigation by surrendering before the Arresting Officer and it is submitted by learned State counsel that they have joined the same and also that their custodial interrogation is not required. It is, however, argued by learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant that since there are serious allegations against the petitioners, therefore, they do not deserve to be extended benefit of pre-arrest bail. 5.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned State counsel at considerable length and have gone through the record carefully.

6.

The petitioners are alleged to have abetted the suicide by the victim. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of a decree passed by the Civil Court, the petitioners along with Government officials i.e. Tehsildar and Patwari etc. had visited the property of the victim on 17.05.2023 which was got attached for auction of the same for realisation of the decretal amount. The victim had consumed poisonous substance on 18.05.2023 which resulted in his unfortunate death. The victim is also shown to have left a suicide note as per which the petitioners and their father were responsible for his death. The authenticity of this note is to be decided on thorough

assessment of evaluation of the evidence produced before the trial Court. For the purpose of bringing out a case for commission of offence under Section 306 of IPC, specific abetment as contemplated under Section 107 of IPC on the part of the accused with an intention to bring out the suicide of the person concerned as a result of that abetment is required. The mere allegations that because of the accused, the victim committed suicide is not sufficient, unless there is some material on record to show that some particular action on the part of the accused compelled the victim to commit suicide and his suicide was proximate to some offending action. The intention of the accused of aiding, instigating or abetting deceased to commit suicide is a must for offence.

Whether the petitioners committed any offence under Section 306 of IPC is certainly a question of debate in view of the nature of the allegations levelled against them in this case. The custodial interrogation of the petitioners is no more required. No useful purpose would be served by detaining them in custody. -   .       # #!.

 #

 *

#!    .  (778272'*  *

      ! ##  . 
# '()2

 # 











2

.
3


 '
()*+