Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 334 (PNJ)

Kewal Krishan v. State Of Punjab

2000-03-24

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
Judgment K.S.Kumaran, J. 1. Gurtej Singh lodged a complaint with the Police Station Boha, district Mansa alleging that his brother Parma Singh had committed suicide because of the uneasiness created by the petitioners - Kewal Krishan and Angrez Ram because of the loan. According to the complainant, their father Saun Singh had been selling agricultural produce to the Commission Agent Angrez Ram Mahajan, and that heavy loan amount was due to Angrez Singh from their father which he had repaid. It is further stated that later on, after the death of their, the petitioners filed a suit before the Court at Mansa alleging that some more loan amount was due from the complainant and others, and had even got warrant of attachment of their properties. According to the complainant, on 24.5.99, the petitioners along with Halqa Patwari and Kanungo came to their village for attaching their land. The complainant has also alleged that about 1- 1/2 years ago, the petitioners had sent false complaint against them, and even now they are pressurising the complainant and others to sell their lands and give the money. According to the complainant, due to this debt, they were all uneasy and his brother - Parma Singh (deceased) had been saying very often that it would be better to die than live such a miserable life. He has also alleged that on 30.6.99, Parma Singh had set himself on fire and committed suicide due to the uneasiness created because of the loan of the petitioners. It is on these allegations that FIR No. 73 dated 1.4.99 has been registered under Sections 306/34 IPC. 2. Petitioners application for bail in anticipation of arrest was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Mansa, and hence, this petition before this Court for the same relief. 3. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the father of the complainant i.e. Saun Singh had borrowed Rs. 50,000/- from the petitioners on a pronote on which a suit was filed and decreed. According to the petitioners, before the execution of the decree, the father of the complainant had died, and the complainant and the deceased are also the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. 50,000/- from the petitioners on a pronote on which a suit was filed and decreed. According to the petitioners, before the execution of the decree, the father of the complainant had died, and the complainant and the deceased are also the legal representatives of the judgment-debtor. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the property of the judgment - debtor was brought to sale in execution of the decree. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that apart from moving the court for realisation of the money in execution of the decree, the petitioners have done nothing, and there is also nothing to show that they had abetted Parma Singh to commit suicide. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is the right of the decree-holder to get the money by executing the decree. He also contends that Parma Singh had committed suicide because of the family feud. 5. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioners used to go and ask for the money in the presence of guests and at odd hours. The learned counsel for the complainant contends that the deceased was called to the Police Station, humiliated and constantly harassed at the instance of the petitioners, and that the police also in connivance with the petitioners kept Parma Singh in detention so many times, and therefore, hehad committed suicide. To this effect, the complainant has produced two affidavits (Annexures R/1 & R/2) of Balvir Singh and Akqi Kaur alias Nicky Kaur. But the learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this is not even the allegation in the FIR, and that nothing mentioned in Annexures R/1 and R/2 is found in the FIR. Learned counsel for the State also concedes that the petitioners have joined investigation. 6. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail. 7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioners on the allegations found in the FIR mentioned in this petition, the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer. However the petitioners shall abide by the provisions of Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C.