Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1756 (PNJ)

Sushma v. State of UT Chandigarh

2012-12-05

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Sushma, the petitioner by way of Crl. Misc. No.M- 29578 of 2012 seeks pre-arrest bail, while Geeta, the petitioner, by way of Crl. Misc. No.M- 33517 of 2012 seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 316 dated 28.08.2012 at Police Station Sector 11, Chandgiarh for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no case made out against the petitioners for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC from the FIR. According to him, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the case. He has further submitted that no ingredient of section 306 IPC has been satisfied in this case and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought by them. 3. Learned standing counsel for UT, Chandigarh, on the other hand, has submitted that the deceased had left suicide note about which there is reference in paragraph no.4 of Annexure P-1, the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on the bail application of Sushma. According to him, the petitioners had harassed the deceased and on account of that harassment, he has committed suicide. According to him, custodial interrogation of the petitioner Sushma is required for investigation of this case. 4. The FIR of the case is a short document, which can be reproduced here with benefit. Ajay Kumar, complainant has claimed himself to be working as a private driver and staying with his parents. According to him, he is the eldest brother and his younger brother Jai Kumar is unmarried. According to him, his youngest brother Vijay Kumar alias Vicky had a love marriage with Geeta and he was blessed with a child. Vijay Kumar alias Vicky was not having congenial relations with his wife. The parents of his wife used to interfere in the house with regard to the maltreatment given to Geeta. He has further stated that Geeta used to work in a Beauty Parlor and Vijay Kumar alias Vicky as well as other family members did not like her doing job in a Beauty Parlor and this was the main reason for the dispute between the husband and the wife. He has further stated that Geeta used to work in a Beauty Parlor and Vijay Kumar alias Vicky as well as other family members did not like her doing job in a Beauty Parlor and this was the main reason for the dispute between the husband and the wife. Vijay Kumar alias Vicky told the complainant that his wife Geeta was pressurizing him for giving some money to his father and on this issue Vijay Kumar alias Vicky used to remain tense. It is further mentioned that in this connection, Geeta with her parents as well as uncle and aunty used to visit the house of the complainant and they used to speak ill to his family and all this had created tensions which could not be tolerated by Vijay Kumar alias Vicky and on this account, he committed suicide. 5. Annexure P-1 is the order dated 07.09.2012 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh on the bail application of Sushma. It is mentioned in para no.4 thereof that the deceased had left a suicide note in his own hand , in which he has named the petitioner Sushma among others to be responsible for his death. 6. Sushma, petitioner is the aunt of Geeta. Even if money was demanded by Geeta for her parents from the deceased, Sushma was to be least benefitted by the said money. No overt act is attributed to Sushma in the entire FIR. Though, the suicide note is not before the court, yet the same must also be in general terms as appears from the order of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. In these circumstances, Sushma having joined the investigation, she is entitled to pre-arrest bail. 7. The first point of disliking for Vijay Kumar alias Vicky, the deceased was that his wife was working in a Beauty Parlor. If her working in the Beauty Parlor was not to the liking of the deceased, he could tell her in clear terms to stop going to the same and if she was not agreeable to it, he could even turn her out of his house. The other important fact in this case is that the deceased was being disturbed by Geeta by demanding money from him for her parents. The deceased could plainly refuse to oblige her. The other important fact in this case is that the deceased was being disturbed by Geeta by demanding money from him for her parents. The deceased could plainly refuse to oblige her. There is nothing in the FIR as to what other steps had been taken by Geeta for getting her demand fulfilled except of asking Vijay Kumar alias Vicky in this regard. In the absence of any such thing, it cannot be said that Geeta had gone to the extent of disturbing the deceased to the extent that he was left with no choice but to commit suicide. Geeta is in custody and seeks regular bail. In these circumstances, I do not find any circumstance under which the said relief could be declined to her. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, both the petitions are allowed. The order dated 24.09.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No. 29578 of 2012 granting interim bail to the petitioner Sushma is made absolute. Geeta is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh.