JUDGMENT Anoop Chitkara, J. FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections 41 20.03.2024 Sadar Sri. Muktsar Sahib, District Sri. Muktsar Sahib 306, 506, 34 IPC The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail. 2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declare that she has no criminal antecedents. 3. The prosecution's case is being taken from reply dated 23.05.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows: 3. That the law was set in motion by Rakesh Kumar son of Chiman Lal suffered his inter alia statement to the police of P.S. Sadar Muktsar Sahib on 16-03-2024 to the effect that he has been working as conductor at Punjab Roadways Depot at Sri. Muktsar Sahib. He was married with Gunita Rani d/o Kashmir Singh r/o Tarobari about 3 years before. His wife started saying for last 1-1 1/2 years that she would not live with his parents. Due to such reasons his marital discord arose with his wife Gunita and she went to her parental house to live. His In-laws made complaint with the police of PP Ladhuka. Panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute but efforts could not yield any positive result. In another complaint of his In laws at Women Cell Fazilka, he was directed to return the gold jewelry of his wife on 18-3-2024, but the girl side was demanding 3-1/2 tolla of gold whereas he had only 02 tollas. Thereafter his mother in law Pasho-present petitioner, brother in law Major Singh and Monu Singh and his wife Gunita Rani started threatening them to implicate in a FIR under dowry law and to eliminate them. On the relevant day of 16-3-2024, when he was on his duty and returning from Ferozepur to Muktsar, his cousin Raman Kumar informed him through mobile phone about the missing of his father Chiman Singh. He further disclosed to the complainant that when he (Raman Kumar) made a phone to his father Chiman Lal, he narrated about his dilemma at the hand of in-laws of Rakesh Kumar who used to harass him on phone. The deceased Chiman Lal claimed that he was sitting at the side of Ladhuwala Canals and will commit suicide by jumping in canals. The complainant parked his bus at Muktsar Depot and came at Ladhuwala Canals by bus. The deceased Chiman Lal claimed that he was sitting at the side of Ladhuwala Canals and will commit suicide by jumping in canals. The complainant parked his bus at Muktsar Depot and came at Ladhuwala Canals by bus. Where he found motor cycle of his father parked at the bank of canals and recovered suicide note of his father from the side bag of his motor cycle, in which deceased held present petitioner Pasho, Gunita Rani daughter, Major and Monu sons of Kashmir Singh, responsible for the suicide. 4. That on the basis of statement and suicide note of Chiman Lal, DDR No.38 dated 16.03.2024 was registered for the purpose of information and verification. On 20.03.2024, the information received at Police Station that the dead body of Chiman Singh father of Rakesh Kumar was recovered from the Gang Canal near Sadhu wala head, P.S Sadar Ganganagar, finding prima facie offence under section 306/506/34 IPC made out against accused Gunita Rani, Major Singh, Monu Singh and present petitioner Pasho, investigation was launched with the registration of FIR No. 41. 4. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. Petitioner's counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family. 5. Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the allegations are bald and the petitioner did not abet the deceased to commit suicide. In para 4 of the petition, it has been mentioned that there were temperamental differences between daughter of petitioner and complainant and the complainant left her at the house of the petitioner (paternal house) and never came back to reconcile the same. Kashmir Singh-husband of petitioner also tried to convince the complainant and his family members but they were adamant on dowry demands due to which they even gave beatings to daughter of petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise had taken place between both the families but complainant party never performed their part due to which a complaint dated 22.02.2024 was written by daughter of petitioner to S.S.P., Fazilka prior to the alleged suicide by Chiman Singh in which she informed about the conduct of the complainant and his family members. Counsel for the petitioner submits that a compromise had taken place between both the families but complainant party never performed their part due to which a complaint dated 22.02.2024 was written by daughter of petitioner to S.S.P., Fazilka prior to the alleged suicide by Chiman Singh in which she informed about the conduct of the complainant and his family members. The specific allegations were made against her sister-in-law and mother-in-law that they had taken her 3-4 tollas of gold and also about her in-laws giving beatings to her. 6. State counsel opposes the bail and has referred to the suicide note, as per which, Chiman Singh father of complainant and father-in-law of petitioner's daughter mentioned that due to lack of understanding daughter of petitioner was staying at her paternal home. Number of Panchayats were convened to call her back but she refused to return back. When daughter of petitioner had left their home, she had also taken not only her gold but also the gold which they had been given to her. She also put entire blame on complainant. In one Panchayat, it was decided to return ring and Kada. All of the accused wanted to forcibly take away his articles by putting him under duress, which he could not give and because of this pressure, he committed suicide and the petitioner's family members are responsible for the same. 7. An analysis of the arguments and the suicide note would lead to the outcome that even as per the suicide note, daughter of petitioner was residing with her. Regarding the allegations of pressure to return the gold, the suicide note is silent about the nature of pressure or what they intended to do. There is not even a single allegation of any physical violence being meted out by daughter of petitioner against the deceased. Regarding filing of a complaint, it was legal right of daughter of petitioner to do so and it was also obligatory for the police officials to proceed on the allegations made in the suicide note. In case, the allegations made by daughter of petitioner in such complaint are found to be incorrect, then needless to say that the investigator shall proceed against her under Section 182 IPC or corresponding Sections 216 or 217 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whatever is applicable. It is neither a case of custodial interrogation nor pre-trial incarceration. 8. In case, the allegations made by daughter of petitioner in such complaint are found to be incorrect, then needless to say that the investigator shall proceed against her under Section 182 IPC or corresponding Sections 216 or 217 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whatever is applicable. It is neither a case of custodial interrogation nor pre-trial incarceration. 8. Given the nature of the allegations coupled with the fact that the petitioner is a first offender, one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct. Even a prima facie perusal of paragraphs 6 and 7 of the bail petition needs consideration for bail. 9. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565 , (Para 30), a Constitutional Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumulative effect of the variety of circumstances justifying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v. Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42 , (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are entitled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its satisfaction for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situations. The rejection of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent application. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing require, and a change in the fact situation. In State of Rajasthan v. Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447 , (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court noticeably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances suggestive of fleeing from justice or thwarting the course of justice or creating other troubles in the shape of repeating offences or intimidating witnesses and the like by the petitioners who seek enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioners to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the petitioners to avoid the course of justice and must weigh when considering the question of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikanti Narasimhulu v. Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240 , (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the negative criteria necessitating that course. In Prahlad Singh Bhati v. NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280 , Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considerations. In Dataram Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2018 : INSC : 107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22 , (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is entirely within the discretion of the judge hearing the matter and though that discretion is unfettered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, conditions for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory. 10. The possibility of the accused influencing the investigation, tampering with evidence, intimidating witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing justice, can be taken care of by imposing elaborative and stringent conditions. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of Delhi), 2020 : INSC : 106 [Para 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1 , Para 92, the Constitutional Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restrictive conditions. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013) 15 SCC 570 , Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Section 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of investigation of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose conditions countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered investigation. 11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 12. 11. Without commenting on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner makes a case for bail, subject to the following terms and conditions, which shall be over and above and irrespective of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973. 12. In Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2023 : PHHC : 077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponential growth in technology and artificial intelligence has transformed identification techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recognition are incredibly sophisticated and pervasive. Impersonation, as we know it traditionally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from justice, then in such cases, appropriate conditions can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss. [21] In this era when the knowledge revolution has just begun, to keep pace with exponential and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fitting that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alternative options. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate. 13. Given above, provided the petitioner is not required in any other case, the petitioner shall be released on bail in the FIR captioned above in the following terms: (a). Petitioner to furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); And (b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the satisfaction of the concerned Investigator/SHO, before whom the bonds are required to be furnished. When the bonds are to be furnished before a Judicial Magistrate, then if the concerned Judicial Magistrate is unavailable, go to any other nearest llaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court. Or (b). Petitioner to hand over to the concerned investigator a fixed deposit for Rs. Before accepting the surety, the concerned officer must be satisfied that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court. Or (b). Petitioner to hand over to the concerned investigator a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automatic renewal of the principal and the interest reverting to the linked account, made in favor of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned 'Chief Judicial Magistrate'. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the petitioners to prepare an account payee demand draft favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount. (c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds until the case's closure or discharged by substitution, or up to the expiry of the period mentioned under Section 437A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under Section 446 CrPC, the entire amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor. (d). The petitioner are to also execute a bond for attendance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presentation of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declarations made in the bail petition and all other stipulations, terms, and conditions of section 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order. (e). While furnishing personal bond, the petitioner shall mention the following personal identification details: 1. AADHAR number 2. Passport number, (If available), when the attesting officer/court thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk. 3. Mobile number (If available) 4. E-Mail id (If available) 14. The petitioner is directed to join the investigation within seven days and also as and when called by the Investigator . The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. The petitioner shall be in deemed custody for Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called by the Investigating Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the investigation at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecution to seek cancellation of the bail. Whenever the investigation occurs within the police premises, the petitioners shall not be called before 8 AM, let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc. 15. The petitioner shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence. 16. Till the completion of the trial, the petitioner shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objectionable behavior towards the victim and victim's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor shall unnecessarily roam around the victim's home. 17. The bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and after that in Section 437A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of conditions. 18. If the petitioner finds the bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the notice of this Court for appropriate reduction. Further, if the petitioner finds bail condition(s) as violating fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situation, then for modification of such term(s), the petitioners may file a reasoned application before this Court, and after taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condition. 19. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law. 20. 19. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the investigating agency from further investigation as per law. 20. In case the Investigator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Station arraigns another section of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new section prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sections mentioned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added section(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sections prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sections mentioned above, then, in that case, the Investigator/Officer-in-Charge shall give the petitioners' notice of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law. 21. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 22. In return for the protection from incarceration, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior. 23. There would be no need for a certified copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Petitioners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and attest it to be a true copy. In case the attesting officer wants to verify the authenticity, such an officer can also verify its authenticity and may download and use the downloaded copy for attesting bonds. Petition allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applications, if any, stand disposed.