Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 429 (JK)

Gurmeet Singh and Ors. v. State of J&K and Ors.

2015-08-19

BANSI LAL BHAT

body2015
JUDGMENT Bansi Lal Bhat, J. 1. Unfazed of rejection of their plea at the hands of learned Principal Sessions Judge, Srinagar, the petitioners, Gurmeet Singh and Surjeet Singh have invoked inherent jurisdiction of this Court for their enlargement on bail in case FIR No. 87/2015, Police Station, Sadder, Srinagar, for the offence under section 306 RPC. Facts germane to the disposal of the bail plea may briefly be noticed. On 27.05.2015, Police Post, Chanapora, received an information through reliable sources that one Bharat Prakash Singh S/O Dr. Mohan Singh, consumed some poisonous substance at his residence Chanapora for committing suicide and he had been admitted in the Hospital. The information was recorded in daily diary under Report No. 87/2015 and a case for offence under section 309 RPC was registered at Police Station, Sadder. Investigation was embarked upon. The deceased was not a fit state of mind and his statement could not be recorded. He expired on 28.05.2015. The body of the deceased was removed from the hospital by his family and last rites were conducted without subjecting the body of the deceased to postmortem examination. Subsequently, the legal heirs of the deceased have obtained an order of post facto exemption from postmortem from the District Magistrate, Srinagar. Afterwards, a complaint was also lodged by wife of the deceased against the present petitioners on the basis of a suicide note. Her statement under section 164-A Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded before a Judicial Magistrate. The offence under section 309 RPC was deleted and substituted by offence under section 306 RPC. The petitioners have been arrested on 10.06.2015 and 11.06.2015 respectively and are lodged in judicial custody. The investigation culminated in filing of a charge sheet against the petitioners for the offence under section 306 RPC before the competent court for judicial determination. 2. Bail is claimed on the ground that the petitioners are not even remotely connected with the alleged offence. It is stated in the bail petition that suicide note recovered during the course of investigation has not been made public. It is further stated in the bail petition that the empty bottle allegedly containing some poisonous substance has not been subjected to chemical examination. It is stated in the bail petition that suicide note recovered during the course of investigation has not been made public. It is further stated in the bail petition that the empty bottle allegedly containing some poisonous substance has not been subjected to chemical examination. It is further stated that the legal heirs of the deceased including his wife have hurriedly taken the dead body of the deceased to perform the last rites in his native village at Tral without allowing the investigating agency to conduct postmortem examination of the body of the deceased. Petitioners claim that the suicide note is a manipulated document and same cannot be acted upon to connect the petitioners with the alleged offence. 3. On consideration of this matter, notice was issued to the respondents for filing objections. Mr. Bashir Ahmad Dar, learned Additional Advocate General, has filed the objections and resisted the bail plea of the petitioners. Bail plea is opposed on the ground that the suicide note recovered by wife of the deceased clearly indicts the petitioners holding them responsible for commission of suicide by the deceased and in presence of the same petitioners are not entitled to bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, perused the record and considered the matter. Record of the case has been sent for from the trial court for perusal. 5. It emerges from the charge sheet that the deceased Bharat Prakash Singh had consumed a poisonous substance and he was removed to SMHS Hospital, Srinagar, for treatment. It happened on 27.05.2015. Initially case was registered under section 309 RPC against the deceased for making an attempt at suicide. The deceased did not recover and expired on 28.05.2015. Admittedly, the deceased was not a fit state of mind to make a statement regarding cause of his death. Thus, no dying declaration is available in the case. However, wife of the deceased, while conducting a cleaning operation of her house on 08.06.2015 recovered a suicide note consisting of four leaves authored by the deceased besides an empty bottle of poison and produced the same at the Police Station together with a complaint wherein she accused the petitioners of having abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. This led to conversion of offence under section 306 RPC. The investigating agency has established authorship of suicide note by obtaining opinion of hand writing expert. This led to conversion of offence under section 306 RPC. The investigating agency has established authorship of suicide note by obtaining opinion of hand writing expert. The expert opinion traces the authorship of the suicide note to the deceased. Expert opinion is also said to have been obtained in regard to the contents of the empty bottle recovered by the wife of the deceased during the house cleaning operation. The contents are said to be a poisonous substance. 6. Admittedly, the poisonous substance was self administered, the case initially having been registered as an attempt at self murder. It appears that the family of the deceased removed the dead body of the deceased from the Hospital on 28.05.2015 without informing the investigating agency and cremated dead body in the ancestral village in Tral area of South Kashmir, though subsequently an order has been obtained from the District Magistrate, Srinagar, for dispensing with postmortem examination of the deceased. It further appears that wife of the deceased stayed back in the ancestral home of the deceased in Tral area and shifted back to her matrimonial home on 08.06.2015 where during cleaning operation of the house, she stumbled upon an empty bottle of pesticides and a suicide note comprising of four leaves. She produced the suicide note and the empty bottle of poison at the Police Station and also filed a complaint alleging abetment of suicide of deceased against the petitioners. It is manifestly clear that the allegation of abetment of suicide against the petitioners emanated from the mouth of wife of the deceased for the first time 11 days after the expiry of the deceased. 7. A cursory look at the complaint reveals that there was some financial transaction between the deceased and the petitioners which according to the wife of the deceased had been settled in the year 2014. The wife of the deceased alleged that the petitioners were harassing the deceased and compelling the deceased to shell out more money. A bird's eye view of the suicide note reveals that the deceased had financial transactions with some individuals including the petitioners. He appeared to be in financial distress. The wife of the deceased alleged that the petitioners were harassing the deceased and compelling the deceased to shell out more money. A bird's eye view of the suicide note reveals that the deceased had financial transactions with some individuals including the petitioners. He appeared to be in financial distress. While it is true that the deceased has nominated the petitioners as being responsible for compelling the deceased to take the extreme step of committing self murder, there is no material on record to even faintly suggest that the petitioners, apart from putting up demand of money claimed to be outstanding against the deceased, in any manner harassed, instigated, goaded or encouraged the deceased to commit suicide. A creditor, by putting up a demand of money lying outstanding against a person committing suicide, cannot be held guilty of having abetted the commission of suicide. Slapping a debtor with notice of recovery of money by a creditor or even consistent demand of money by a creditor can by no stretch of imagination be termed as harassment of the debtor. Essential ingredient of abetment of suicide lies in instigating, goading, encouragement, compelling by use of force or otherwise or facilitating the commission of suicide by deceased which postulates acts of commission on the part of the perpetrator of crime other than mere demand of money. In absence of any allegation of any act of commission of the nature specified hereinabove, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners that the complicity of petitioners for offence under section 306 RPC is not made out, cannot be dismissed off hand. 8. It is seen that the investigation in the case has been concluded and the same has culminated in filing of a charge sheet against the petitioners under section 306 RPC. Presence of petitioners is no more required by the investigating agency for subjecting them to custodial interrogation. It is not shown as to how enlargement of the petitioners on bail would affect fairness of the trial. Offence alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the purview of bar imposed under section 497 Cr.P.C. as the same is not punishable with capital sentence or life imprisonment. 9. Viewed thus, a case for admission of petitioners on bail is made out. Accordingly, bail petition is allowed. Offence alleged against the petitioners does not fall within the purview of bar imposed under section 497 Cr.P.C. as the same is not punishable with capital sentence or life imprisonment. 9. Viewed thus, a case for admission of petitioners on bail is made out. Accordingly, bail petition is allowed. The petitioners are ordered to be enlarged on bail on their executing a bond with two solvent sureties, each in a sum of Rs. fifty thousand, to the satisfaction of the Registrar Judicial of this Court subject to the following conditions-- "a) That the petitioners shall not in any manner try to influence the prosecution witnesses; b) The petitioners shall not leave the territorial jurisdiction of this court without seeking prior permission from the trial court; c) The petitioners shall not engage themselves in any criminal activities. d) The petitioners shall not jump the bail." 10. Needless to say that if any of the conditions is breached by the petitioners, in that eventuality, it shall warrant cancellation of bail. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove for disposal of the instant bail petition shall not be deemed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial court shall not be influenced by these observations while dealing with the matter at the charge/discharge or at the final stage. Disposed of.