Allowed

Savita v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Feb 2012CRM-M/34840/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted absolute anticipatory bail to Savita and Pankaj in abetment to suicide cases. The court held that ordinary domestic discord does not constitute abetment, converting interim bail granted earlier in relation house disputes involving the husband's suicide.

What did the court decide?

Interim pre-arrest bail granted earlier made absolute. Petitioners to be released upon arrest subject to conditions and regular bail post charge sheet.

Savita Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

1. Criminal Misc. No. M-34840 of 2011 (O&M)

Smt. Savita

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

… Respondent

2. Criminal Misc. No. M-36408 of 2011 (O&M)

Pankaj

… Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

… Respondent

Date of decision: 23^rd February, 2012

¶15

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶16

Present: Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶17

Mr. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State.

¶18

Mr. Gunjan Mehta, Advocate for the complainant.

¶19

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶20

By this common order, Criminal Misc. No.M-34840 of 2011 preferred by Smt. Savita and Criminal Misc. No.M-36408 of 2011 filed by Pankaj shall be decided together.

¶21

Both the present petitions have been filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners in a case arising out of FIR No.439 dated 07.09.2011 registered at Police Station Urban Estate, Rohtak under Section 306 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶22

Savita, petitioner in CRM No.M-34840 of 2011, was married with Yogesh on 11^th November, 2009. Out of the wedlock, no child was born. Yogesh, on 6^th September, 2011, had committed suicide. He left a suicide note, wherein he stated that he has been threatened to be liquidated by brothers of his wife, namely Pankaj, Banti and one Lambu.

¶23

¶24

Criminal Misc. Nos. M-34840 and M-36408 of 2011 (O&M)

¶25

Furthermore, they had taken away wife of the deceased without his permission. He was staying separately from his parents in upper portion of the house. Another grievance made was that his wife had left the house taking along Rs.1.00 lakh, one gold chain, Mangal Suttar, two bracelets and three gold rings.

¶26

A Coordinate Bench of this Court, in CRM No.M-34840 of 2011, on November 18, 2011 had passed the following order:

¶27

“It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that from the contents of the FIR it cannot be made out that the petitioner abetted the commission of suicide by the deceased. He also submitted that even from the suicide note, which is being relied upon by the investigating agency, it cannot be said that it was the petitioner who abetted the said suicide.

¶28

Notice of motion for 19.12.2011.

¶29

In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in the FIR, mentioned in the petition, she is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶30

(i) She shall join the investigation as and when required by the Investigating Officer.

¶31

(ii) She shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Investigating Officer/Court; and

¶32

(iii) She shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.”

¶33

Whereas, in CRM No.M-36408 of 2011, on December 05, 2011, the Bench had passed the following order:

¶34

“Heard.

¶35

¶36

Criminal Misc. Nos. M-34840 and M-36408 of 2011 (O&M)

¶37

It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the matter between the deceased and Savita, sister of the petitioner, was patched out by the police and she was brought to his house by the petitioner and the suicide was committed by the deceased in her absence. He further submitted that Savita has already been allowed interim anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.Misc.No.M34840 of 2011, which is fixed for 19.12.2011.

¶38

Notice of motion for 19.12.2011.

¶39

In the meanwhile, in the event of arrest of the petitioner in the FIR, mentioned in the petition, he is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer subject to the following conditions:-

¶40

(i) He shall join the investigation as and when required by the Arresting Officer.

¶41

(ii) He shall not offer any threat, promise or inducement to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing the same to the Arresting Officer/Court; and

¶42

(iii) He shall not leave the limits of this country without prior permission of the Court.”

¶43

Counsel for the State, on instructions from Raj Singh ASI, Police Station Urban Estate Rohtak, states that the petitioners have joined the investigation but the articles, which wife of the deceased had taken from her matrimonial home, are yet to be recovered.

¶44

It will be determined during the course of trial as to whether the said articles constituted Istri Dhan of the wife or not. Furthermore, commission of offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is also a moot point.

¶45

It has been held by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in ‘ Amalendu Pal @ Jhantu v. State of West Bengal’, 2010(1) R.A.J.,

¶46

¶47

Criminal Misc. Nos. M-34840 and M-36408 of 2011 (O&M)

¶48

184 and ‘Gangula Mohan Reddy versus State of Andhra Pradesh’, 2010(1) Recent Apex Judgments, 106 that ordinary discord and petulance in day-to-day domestic life are not sufficient to infer that the accused has committed an offence of abetment to suicide. To invoke Section 107 IPC for abetment, it is necessary that the accused must have incited, provoked, instigated or goaded the deceased to commit suicide.

¶49

Hence, both the present petitions are accepted. The interim pre-arrest bail granted to the petitioners vide separate orders dated November 18, 2011 and December 05, 2011 passed in CRM No.M34840 of 2011 and CRM No.M-36408 of 2011 respectively, is made absolute and it is ordered that in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer. However, they shall continue to appear before the investigating agency as and when called-for till filing of a report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. They shall also abide by the conditions specified under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. On submission of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C., the petitioners shall be permitted to furnish regular bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶50

However, anything said in this order shall not be construed as an expression on merits of the case.

¶51

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE

¶52

February 23, 2012 rps

Savita v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Savita v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mandip Singh Vs State of Punjab and Others

Gurdeep Singh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Mahabir Vs State of Haryana

Saroj Singhal Vs State of Haryana

Ved Parkash Vs State of Punjab

Mehar Chand Saini Vs State of Haryana