Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 33 (HP)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of H. P.

2015-01-07

SURESHWAR THAKUR

body2015
Judgment Sureshwar Thakur, J. The bail petitioner is in judicial custody for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 306, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC in FIR No.216/2014, registered at Police Station, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., hence, the instant bail application has been filed by him for releasing him from judicial custody wherein he is presently lodged. 2. The bail petitioner is in judicial custody since September, 2014. The deceased was married to the bail applicant in the year 2010. They have one issue out of the wedlock. The bail applicant is alleged to have instigated, actuated and fomented the deceased to commit suicide purportedly constituted by his acts of cruelty comprised in taunting the deceased. The allegations purportedly constituting cruelty apart from the bail applicant having meted out taunts to the deceased are vague and general in nature. Even the taunts as meted out by the bail applicant to the deceased and theirs having purportedly fomented the commission of suicide by the deceased are alleged to have been meted out to the deceased in the month of August, 2014. However, the deceased committed suicide on 11.9.2014. For lack of enunciation qua the enormity and magnitude of the tauntings as purportedly meted out by the bail applicant to the deceased cannot constrain this Court to conclude that he traumatized the mind set of the deceased for hers being actuated to commit suicide besides the remoteness inter se the meting of taunts by the accused to the deceased inasmuch as theirs have been meted out in August, 2014 and the deceased having committed suicide in the month of September, 2014, does not hence render the purported actuatory cause to be immediately proximate to the commission of the suicide by the deceased. As such, at this stage, it cannot tantamount to be the propellant cause for the deceased to commit suicide. Concomitantly given the lack of specificity qua the enormity and magnitude of the tauntings purportedly meted by the accused to the deceased as also for lack of specificity qua their proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased cannot at all constrain this Court to conclude that such taunts, if any, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Concomitantly given the lack of specificity qua the enormity and magnitude of the tauntings purportedly meted by the accused to the deceased as also for lack of specificity qua their proximity to the commission of suicide by the deceased cannot at all constrain this Court to conclude that such taunts, if any, instigated the deceased to commit suicide. Obviously in the face thereof and when at this stage, the investigation in the case is complete, besides when given the fact that the further judicial incarceration of the bail applicant would not serve any useful purpose and in the face of absence of material on record demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail petitioner, there is every likelihood of the bail petitioner fleeing from justice or tampering with the prosecution evidence, as a sequel, then, the bail petitioner is entitled to the indulgence of the bail. Besides when other co-accused Kapoor Chand and Rumla Devi have been granted indulgence of bail by this Court on 29.12.2014, as such, on the principle of parity the present bail applicant is also entitled to be afforded the facility of bail. Consequently, the application is allowed and the bail petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his complying with the following conditions: (i) that the bail applicant shall furnish personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kangra, District Kangra, H.P. ; (ii) that the bail applicant shall join the investigation, as and when required by the Investigating Agency; (iii) that he shall not directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer; (iv) that he shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court ; (v) that he shall deposit his passport, if any, with the Police Station concerned; and (vi) that in case of violation of any of these conditions, the bail granted to the petitioner shall be forfeited and he shall be liable to be taken into custody. 3. 3. Any observation made hereinabove shall not be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the matter uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove.