Reena Soni vs State of Haryana

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—This is a petition brought under the provisions of section 439 Cr.P.C. for regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 302 dated 10.8.2011 at Police Station City Narnaul. District Mohindergarh for an offence punishable under sections 302, 328 and 201 of Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the dead body of Surinder Misra was found on 7.8.2011 and on that day, no foul play was suspected in the death of Surinder Misra by his father. According to him, on 10.8.2011, father of the deceased suspected Sonu to have been responsible for the killing of his son. Sonu was arrested and after thorough enquiry, he was found innocent and he was discharged. According to him, on 13.9.2011, the petitioner was arrested for an offence u/s 306 IPC and as challan was not filed within 60 days, application was made for releasing her on bail but the same was dismissed on the ground that the case was originally registered u/s 302 IPC and 90 days had not expired by that time. According to him, though, challan was prepared u/s 306 IPC yet on the objection of the prosecuting agency, challan was filed under sections 302, 328 and 201 IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that it is a case of suicide by consuming aluminum phosphide. He has submitted that charge has been framed by the court u/s 302 IPC. Coming to the facts, He has submitted that the deceased wanted to marry the petitioner and when the petitioner refused to marry him, he committed suicide. He has further submitted that there is no evidence at all on the record suggesting the murder of Surinder Misra by the petitioner. He has further submitted that the deceased had been a married person for the last 10 years and despite being married, he wanted to marry the petitioner, who refused to do so and even if he committed, suicide on account of this, as is stated by Ishwar Singh Sharma, a person examined by the investigating officer u/s 161 Cr.P.C. in the case, still no offence is made out against the petitioner.

Learned State counsel has submitted, on the other hand, that there is evidence of call details with the prosecution. According to him there were three mobile phones and all of them were in the name of the deceased. According to him, two out of the three were used by the deceased and one by the accused. He has fairly admitted that nothing has been recovered from the accused which can be said to be incriminating material connecting her with the death of Surinder Mishra.

Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that Jitender PW is there with the prosecution who has stated that he saw one woman and three persons dragging a person, who was saying ''leave me'' ''leave me''. According to him the petitioner did not inform the complainant about the death of Surender Mishra though his dead body was found near her house. According to him there is a statement of the petitioner of dragging the body of the deceased.

Except for the facts that the deceased was a married man for the last 10 years, was in love with the petitioner and wanted to marry her, to which the petitioner did not agree there is another fact relevant to the death of Surinder Mishra that he died of consuming poison. If he was dragged as is said to appear in the statement of the petitioner his body would not have the only injury, a wound measuring 1 cm x 1 cm at the top of mid of occipital bone. In my opinion, this injury could not have been the result of dragging of Surinder Mishra prior to his death. The mobile phones and the call details do not provide much requires incriminating material. There is nothing in the statement of Jitender as to who was the person seen by him as being dragged. Keeping in view the aforesaid circumstances and the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 13.9.2011, the petitioner appears to deserve the concession of bail during trial. The petition is, consequently, allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul.