Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 680 (PNJ)

Rajbir Pundir v. State of Haryana

2014-04-07

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2014
JUDGMENT : Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. Petitioner No. 1 Rajbir Pundir son of Bhopal Singh Sidhu, Director and petitioner No. 2 Neelam Dhiman wife of Kuldeep Kumar, Principal of National Public School, have preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC, in a case registered against them, vide FIR No. 370 dated 18.12.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed an offence punishable u/s 306 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Farakpur, District Yamuna Nagar. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 4. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 8.12.2011, Ranjan Sharma son of complainant Anita Sharma, a student of 10+2 class, had gone to his National Public School as usual. His teacher Rakesh Kumar made him to stand outside the class and asked him as to why he was not regular in his class and even he did not pay the fine. The same thing was stated to have been repeated by Principal Neelam Dhiman (petitioner No. 2) while she was on the round of the school. According to the prosecution that he was taken to petitioner No. 1 Rajbir Pundir, Director of the School, who asked Ranjan Sharma that he would spoil his career and would neither issue roll number nor give marks in Practical. He was claimed to have been mentally tortured by the accused. Ranjan Sharma committed suicide on 9.12.2011. It was alleged that the petitioners have abetted the commission of pointed crime. 5. From the sequence of events contained in the FIR (Annexure P1) and the dying declaration (Annexure P2), as to whether the penal provisions of Section 306 IPC are attracted against the petitioners or not, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Be that as it may, petitioner No. 1 is a Director, whereas petitioner No. 2 is a Principal of National Public School. Since nothing is to be recovered from them, so, question of permitting the police to arrest them did not arise. 6. Be that as it may, petitioner No. 1 is a Director, whereas petitioner No. 2 is a Principal of National Public School. Since nothing is to be recovered from them, so, question of permitting the police to arrest them did not arise. 6. Not only that, during the course of preliminary hearing, a Coordinate Bench of this Court (Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.) passed the following order on 7.2.2014 :- "This matter concerns death of Ranjan Sharma, a class XII student of National Public School, Yamuna Nagar. It is a case of suicide. The petitioners had joined the probe twice and both the times, nothing incriminating had surfaced. Now, third probe by a Senior Officer is going on. Counsel for the respondent urges that an undertaking was given by the deceased to the school authorities assuring improvement in his conduct, which document is to be recovered. It is, however, claimed that the petitioners are otherwise not required. Counsel for the petitioners undertakes that the petitioners are ready and willing to join the investigation and to fully cooperate with the investigating agency, as and when required. Adjourned to 4.3.2014 for arguments. Meanwhile, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be admitted to interim bail on their furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall, however, join the investigation as and when called for and they will also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 7. At this stage, the learned State counsel, on instructions from SI Ramesh Chander, has acknowledged the factual matrix and stated that the petitioners have already joined the investigation and they are no longer required for further interrogation at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. 8. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of the facts & circumstances, emanating from the record, as indicated here-in-before and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition is hereby accepted and the aforesaid interim order dated 7.2.2014 is hereby made absolute, subject to compliance of conditions as envisaged under section 438(2) Cr.PC. 9. 9. Needless to mention that nothing observed here-in-above would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for the limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail. At the same time, if the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution/complainant would be at liberty to move an application for cancellation of their bail, in this relevant context.