Jyoti vs State Of Punjab

Vinod S. Bhardwaj, J

This first petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner(s) in case bearing FIR No.25 dated 23.06.2025, registered under Section(s) 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 at Police Station GRP, Jalandhar.

The present FIR came to be registered on the statement of Kashmir Kaur, wife of Shami, who stated that her husband is physically handicapped and of unsound mental condition, owing to which he remains confined at home and that they have five children, including one son, namely Salim (since deceased), who was unmarried. It was further stated that the deceased Salim had earlier travelled abroad to Malaysia, where he worked for approximately three years and returned to India in the year 2021. Thereafter, he commenced employment at a readymade garments shop at Chhota Chowk, Nakodar, earning a monthly salary of about Rs.12,000/- and also undertook light decoration work with a concern known as Alice Light, Nakodar. The complainant further alleged that a woman named Jyoti was residing on rent in a house situated a few houses away from their residence and about a month prior to the death of Salim, it came to their knowledge through local sources that the deceased was allegedly in a relationship with the said Jyoti, though the deceased had denied the same when questioned. It is specifically stated that the deceased was not addicted to any intoxicant. As per the statement, on 10.10.2024, after having his meal, Salim left the house at about 2:30 p.m. to go to his place of work. It is stated that he appeared to be upset on that day. Subsequently, at about 5:00 p.m., the complainant's son Mangat Ram received information that Salim had met with an accident on the railway line. Thereupon, the family proceeded to Civil Hospital, Nakodar, where they identified the body lying in the mortuary as that of Salim. It is further stated that during the initial inquiry, statements of Mangat Ram, a relative Sonu (son of Lakhuram) and other local residents were recorded by the police and a declaration was also furnished by Mangat Ram to the effect that the family did not harbour any suspicion regarding the death of Salim. The death was, at that stage, treated as a case of suicide by coming under a train. Postmortem examination was conducted at Civil Hospital, Nakodar and the body was handed over to the family on 11.10.2024, after which the last rites were performed. It is further alleged that the mobile phone of the deceased, which had been damaged at the time of the incident, was subsequently obtained by the family from the office of the SDM through GRP Police Station, Jalandhar, in November 2024. Upon getting the said mobile phone repaired at a shop in Nakodar, it is stated that one Lucky, an employee of the shop who was acquainted with the deceased and aware of the phone's passwords, informed them about the presence of certain material in the device. Upon accessing the mobile phone, the complainant claims to have discovered multiple voice recordings, which revealed that the deceased had taken the extreme step of suicide on account of harassment by certain persons, namely Jyoti, Manna, Happy (stated to be a policeman at Nakodar), Seema and one Baba Sai. It is further alleged that in one of the recordings, the deceased is heard stating that he had paid an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- to Jyoti. On the basis of the said allegations, the complainant sought investigation and appropriate action against the accused persons.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that as per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the deceased Salim was allegedly in a relationship with the petitioner and is stated to have advanced certain sums of money to her. It is contended that total 04 persons were nominated as accused in the present case and that two of the co-accused, namely Manjit Kaur and Tarun, have already been granted the concession of anticipatory bail by the learned Sessions Judge vide separate orders dated 11.08.2025 and 02.09.2025 respectively. He submits that even if the allegations of the prosecution are accepted to be correct, namely that the petitioner had opposed the continuation of the relationship and/or had not returned the money purportedly advanced by the deceased, the same, by itself, would not satisfy the essential ingredients constituting the offence of abetment of suicide. It is also submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody on 10.07.2025 and although the investigation in the case stands concluded and the final report stands filed, charges are yet to be framed and as many as 20 prosecution witnesses remain to be examined. It is, therefore, contended that the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time to conclude. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has no criminal antecedents.

Per contra, learned counsel for respondent-State contends that an audio recording was retrieved from the mobile phone of the deceased, wherefrom it has come the fore that the petitioner was in relationship with deceased-Salim and allegedly had discontinued the same and that she has also received an amount ranging between Rs.3,00,000/- to Rs.4,00,000/-from him on the pretext of marrying him. He contends that upon the petitioner resiling from her assurance and refusing to return the money, the deceased was driven to take the extreme step of committing suicide.

Learned counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner not only refused to continue the relationship and to return the money received from the deceased but also made further demands for an amount of Rs.2,00,000/- from him, failing which, she threatened the deceased to implicate him in some false case(s).

On a specific query, learned State counsel contends that even though the audio does reflect of certain additional amount being demanded, however, the said audio does not disclose that the petitioner herein had extended any threats to the deceased of falsely implicating him in criminal cases, in the event, her demand is not fulfilled. Rest of the contents are not disputed.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as noted above, including the arguable issues that would arise with respect to the applicability of the offence under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, coupled with the period of actual custody already undergone by the petitioner, her clean antecedents, the fact that she is a woman aged about 33 years and bearing in mind that the conclusion of the trial is likely to take a considerable period of time, I deem it fit to allow the instant petition.

Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be admitted to regular bail subject to her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate concerned.

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witness in any manner directly or indirectly.

The observation made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.