Allowed

Hatish Kumar @ Hitesh Kumar Jindal v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Dec 2014CRM-M/36139/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 306 IPC for abetment to suicide, the High Court allowed the petitioner's release. The judge held that mere sending of short messages and illicit relations do not attract abetment charges and merit discussion was precluded before the trial.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on bail ₹75,000 with one surety pending trial.

Hatish Kumar @ Hitesh Kumar Jindal Vs… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Criminal Misc.No.M-36139 of 2014

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc.No.M-36139 of 2014 Date of Decision: December 09, 2014

¶5

Hatish Kumar @ Hitesh Kumar Jindal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Mikhail Kad, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

Naresh Kumar Sanghi, J. (Oral)

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Hatish Kumar @ Hitesh Kumar, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 304B read with Section 34, IPC, (later on converted to Section 306, IPC) in a case arising out of FIR No.62, dated 11.04.2014, registered at Police Station, City Jagroan, District Ludhiana.

¶16

Learned counsel contends that the petitioner was not in blood relation of Shweta (since deceased), therefore, the offence punishable under Section 304-B read with Section 34, IPC, was deleted and Section 306, IPC, was added; even if the

¶17

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.09 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶18

Criminal Misc.No.M-36139 of 2014

¶19

[2]

¶20

whole case of the prosecution is taken at its face value then also the essential ingredients of abetment to commit suicide punishable under Section 306, IPC, are not attracted qua the petitioner; merely maintaining the illicit relation or sending the short messages by itself would not be a ground to prosecute a person for the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC; perusal of the short messages would not show an iota of word that the petitioner ever forced the deceased to commit suicide; infact Shweta was murdered by her in-laws family and the police saved the real culprits and falsely implicated the petitioner in the present case; the petitioner is behind the bars from 09.08.2014; the investigation is already complete and the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has been presented before the learned Area Judicial Magistrate.

¶21

Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was maintaining illicit relation with the deceased and he was regularly sending the short messages on the mobile of the deceased to press upon her (deceased) to tell her husband that she was maintaining illicit relation with the petitioner and as such, there was constant pressure on her to commit suicide.

¶22

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their able assistance gone through the material available on record.

¶23

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.09 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

Criminal Misc.No.M-36139 of 2014

¶25

[3]

¶26

The petitioner had sent the short messages on the mobile of the deceased with an intention to force her to commit suicide, would be a moot point during trial. Mere maintaining illicit relation with the deceased and to send her the short messages by itself cannot be a ground to presume that the deceased committed suicide, on that account. Even if she had committed the suicide then also on the basis of the said two facts this Court cannot presume that there was an intention on the part of the accused to force the deceased to commit suicide. The much discussion on merits shall prejudice the either side.

¶27

In view of totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. Petitioner-HatishKumar @ Hitesh Kumar Jindal, s/o Jugal Kishore, r/o Friends Colony, Chandigarh Road, Ludhiana, is ordered to be released on bail, during pendency of trial of the present case, subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of Rs.75,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.

¶28

The petitioner shall not in any manner put pressure over the witnesses to resile from the prosecution evidence. In case the petitioner attempts to win over the witnesses, in that eventuality, the prosecution would be free to move an application for cancellation of his bail.

¶29

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.09 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

Criminal Misc.No.M-36139 of 2014

¶31

[4]

¶32

The observations made hereinabove are for the

¶33

limited purpose of deciding the present petition.

¶34

December 09, 2014 seema

¶35

(Naresh Kumar Sanghi) Judge

¶36

SEEMA RANI 2014.12.09 16:51 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Hatish Kumar @ Hitesh Kumar Jindal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hatish Kumar @ Hitesh Kumar Jindal v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulshan Khatun & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Kawalpreet Singh Chahal Vs State of Punjab

M/S Dalla Pesticide & Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Jarnail Singh Vs Ramesh Chand

Asmeena Vs State of Haryana and Ors.