This decision denies anticipatory bail in a proxy suicide case. The Court found that the FIR was not filed within a reasonable time of the incident and the petitioners did not visit the hospital where the deceased was treated, making it a fit case for rejection.
Anticipatory bail sought by the petitioners was denied.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M-32721 of 2011
- 1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*********
CRM-M-32721 of 2011 Date of Decision:29.11.2011
Naresh and others
. . .Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana
. . . Respondent
*********
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
*********
Present: Mr.G.S. Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr.Madan Gupta, Advocate, for the complainant.
*********
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL)
This is a petition for pre-arrest bail in a case registered vide FIR No.874 dated 29.09.2011 under Section 306/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) at Police Station Chandni Bagh, Panipat.
The FIR is registered on the complaint of Babu Ram, who has stated that his son Sunil (since deceased) got married with Neelam on 16.6.2010. After marriage, the parents of his daughter-in-law started pressurizing him for transferring the house of the complainant in the name of Neelam. There used to be a quarrel which was ultimately settled before the Panchayat and a Panchayat Nama was executed, which is attached with the petition as Annexure P-1. It is alleged that on 28.9.2011 at 2.30 pm Naresh (father-in-law of petitioner No.l), Bano (mother-in-law), Parveen and Jai Narayan, who are the brothers of Naresh, Suresh and Shishpal (petitioner No.3), who happened to be brothers of petitioner No.2, came to their house and started abusing.
CRM-M-32721 of 2011
- 2 -
Thereafter they all went to the room of deceased Sunil and kept on quarrelling with him for about one hour and left with Neelam threatening him that if the house is not transferred in the name of Neelam then they would keep on harassing them. It is also alleged that at 4.00 PM, they discovered Sunil having consumed some poisonous substance, who was immediately taken to Gaurav Hospital, Panipat where he ultimately died. With these allegations, case under Section 306 IPC was registered against the petitioners.
Petitioners unsuccessfully applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below.
On 08.11.2011, bail application for petitioner No.1 was not pressed before this Court as he was arrested in the meantime but bail application of petitioners No.2 and 3 was pressed in which interim order was issued.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the story of the prosecution cannot be believed because it has been mentioned in the FIR that the deceased was taken to Gaurav Hospital at 4.00 PM whereas it is mentioned in the record of Gaurav Hospital that he was brought at 8.30 PM. The Investigating Officer has filed his affidavit alongwith some document as per which the deceased was first taken to Prem Hospital and thereafter he was shifted to Gaurav Hospital. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that even he was taken to Prem Hospital at 7 PM.
In reply, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that on the same day at 9:10 PM the petitioners had registered FIR No.872 dated 28.9.2010 under Sections 498-A, 406 & 506 IPC though they very well knew that deceased Sunil is fighting for his life in the hospital after taking some poisonous substance. Petitioners did not even visit the hospital where Sunil breathed his last. It is also submitted that the time between the occurrence and the death of the deceased
CRM-M-32721 of 2011
- 3 -
Sunil is so short and the allegations are so startling that he committed suicide when all the petitioners collectively gave him oral thrashing.
After hearing learned counsel for the parties but without making any observation on merits, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed.
NOVEMBER 29, 2011 Vivek
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the facts and circumstances of the case make it fit for the grant of anticipatory bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Naresh and others
State of Haryana
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
