Darshan Kaur vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of the instant petition preferred u/s 438 Cr.P.C. seeking the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 31 dated 24.04.2014, under Sections 306, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar.

On 21.05.2014, while issuing notice of motion, the following order was passed by this Court :-

The present petition has been filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. praying for concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in F.I.R. No. 31 dated 24.04.2014 under Sections 306, 34 I.P.C., registered at Police Station, Lambra, District Jalandhar.

The deceased in this case is Avtar Singh. FIR has been registered on the statement of Kamaljit Singh i.e. son of deceased Avtar Singh. Allegations are that Avtar Singh has consumed some poisonous substance and committed suicide as he was being harassed by the family of Harbans Singh i.e. husband of the present petitioner and being falsely implicated in murder of Jagmohan Singh i.e. son of the petitioner.

Counsel would argue that Jagmohan Singh i.e. son of the petitioner had been murdered on 15.2.2012 and accordingly FIR had been registered on 16.02.2012 in which Geeta had been named as accused. It is further submitted that challan pertaining to that FIR had been presented but thereafter the present petitioner had filed an application before the Court concerned u/s 173(8) Cr.P.C. to conduct further investigation and in such application the names of Avtar Singh as also complainant Kama/Jit Singh had been mentioned. It is further submitted that such application had been allowed by the Court and further investigation had been directed.

It is the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that even as per the version of the complainant no direct or indirect act has been attributed to the petitioner which may be construed as having induced or abetted deceased Avtar Singh to have committed suicide and as such the ingredients of the offence u/s 306 IPC are not even made out. In support of this, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Chitresh Kumar Chopra Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), .

It is further submitted that the petitioner even otherwise is ready and willing to join investigation.

Notice of motion for 18.7.2014.

Meanwhile, petitioner is directed to join the investigation as and when called by the Investigation Officer. In the event of her arrest, she shall be released on bail by the Investigating Officer on her furnishing bail bonds/sureties to his satisfaction, subject to the conditions mentioned below, as envisaged in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.:-

(i) that the petitioner shall make himself available for interrogation by Police Officer as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioner shall not, directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the petitioner shall not leave India with out the previous permission of the Court;

(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub section (3) of Section 437, as if the bail was granted under that section.

Learned State counsel upon instructions from ASI Sukhwinder Singh would apprise the Court that the petitioner has since joined the investigation. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would not be warranted.

Petition is allowed and the order dated 21.05.2014 passed by this Court is made absolute.

Petition disposed of.