Ramesh Chand And Others vs State Of Himachal Pradesh

Ajay Mohan Goel, J

By way of these two petitions filed under Sections 438 of Cr. P.C, the present petitioners, who are stated to be husband and wife, have prayed for

grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 132/2021, dated 19.05.2021, filed under Sections 306, 34 of IPC, registered at police station Balh, District Mandi,

H.P.

The FIR in issue has been registered, post the death of one Sh. Jeevan Ram, who is stated to be father of petitioner Ramesh Chand and father-in-

law of petitioner Sunita Devi. Sh. Jeevan Kumar is stated to have committed suicide and in the alleged suicide notes, left behind by the deceased, he

has blamed the present petitioners primarily for his taking the extreme step.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the grant of anticipatory bail, the petitioners have duly participated in the investigation

and even otherwise, the allegations, which are contained in the alleged suicide note of the deceased, are totally incorrect as the petitioners are not

guilty of the offences alleged against them. On these basis, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners be released on

anticipatory bail.

Opposing the petitions, learned Additional Advocate General has submitted that taking into consideration the gravity of the offences, which are

alleged against the petitioners and further the fact that deceased has left behind not only one, but two suicide notes, in which he has levelled serious

allegations against the present petitioners, these are not the fit cases for grant of anticipatory bail and custodial interrogation of the petitioners is

necessary to find out the true facts.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having gone through the documents appended with the petitions as well as status report filed by

the State, without making any observation on the merit of the case, this Court concurs with the submissions so made by learned Additional Advocate

General that taking into consideration the gravity of the offences alleged against the petitioners, these are not the fit cases for granting the petitioners

anticipatory bail and in fact, their custodial interrogation is necessary so as to find out the trust. Accordingly, these bail petitions are dismissed.