Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2762 (PNJ)

Sunil v. State Of Haryana

2006-07-14

body2006
Judgment 1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No.246, dated 27.11.2005, registered under Sec.302/34 of the IPC, at Police station Ganaur, District Sonepat. Initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 302/34 of the ipc. However, charge has been framed under Sec.306 of the IPC. As per the allegations, in the FIR, the petitioner had advanced a sum of rs.94,000/- to the deceased for preparation of vehicles licences. The deceased failed to prepare these licences. The petitioner allegedly kidnapped the deceased and thereafter threatened the deceaseds father that in case, he did not pay the aforementioned amount, Sanjay would be killed. Eventually, the dead body of Sanjay was found. This led to the lodging of the present FIR. During the course of investigation, however, the prosecution discovered that the deceased had, infact, consumed poison and committed suicide. 2. Counsel for the petitioner contends that as charge, with respect to the murder, has been dropped by the police and the case is now one of abetment to suicide, the question, whether the petitioner is liable for abetment, would be determined, during the trial. It is further contended that the petitioner has been behind bars since 27.11.2005, and as investigation is complete and charges have been framed, the petitioner be released on bail. 3. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner kidnapped Sanjay, who thereafter committed suicide. Thus, a case of abetment to suicide is made out against the petitioner. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. The question, whether the petitioner kidnapped the deceased, and/or committed an offence or committed such acts as would make him liable for abetment to suicide, would be determined, by the trial Court, on the basis of evidence, to be adduced, before it. Charge, under Sec.302 of the IPC, has been dropped. As investigation is complete and charges have been framed, further incarceration of the petitioner is unwarranted. 5. Counsel for the respondent has not expressed any apprehension that if released on bail, the petitioner would tamper with the prosecution evidence or in any manner subvert the process of trial. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/duty magistrate, Sonepat. Nothing, stated herein, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion, on the merits of the controversy.