Roop Singh Parjapat vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

FIR No. 29 dated 16.3.99 has been registered at Police Station Talwandi Sabo under Sections 306/201/34 IPC on the statement of Mukhtiar Kaur wherein the following among other allegations are found :

The complainant''s daughterIqbal Kaur was married to Roop Singh (petitioner herein) about 8/9 years ago. 2 year ago, Raj Singh, brotherinlaw of Iqbal Kaur was married and was given a scooter in dowry, after which petitioner, his motherGurdial Kaur and his fatherBogha Singh started harassing and telling Iqbal Kaur to get a scooter about which Iqbal Kaur told many a time.

10/12 days ago, Iqbal Kaur came to the village and told that petitionerRoop Singh, Gurdial Kaur and Bogha Singh are pressing her to get a scooter and she was informed that after the son of the complainant comes on leave, they will talk about it. Iqbal Kaur went to her village. On 16.3.99, Gurdas Singh informed the complainant that something had happened to Iqbal Kaur. The complainant alongwith others went to village Lelewala where he found Iqbal Kaur lying dead on the bed. The complainant came to know that Iqbal Kaur had committed suicide by jumping into a sua (a canal) out of frustration caused by Roop Singh, Bhag Singh and Gurdial Kaur. Petitioner and the other accused had also cremated Iqbal Kaur in the presence of the complainant but without his consent.

Petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Bathinda for bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. but his application was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for the same relief.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations in the FIR do not make out a case of abetment against the petitioner. He contends that even if there had been a demand for scooter, it does not mean that the petitioner abetted Iqbal Kaur to commit suicide. He also points out that the petitioner and Iqbal Kaur were married for 9 years, and there is no allegation in the FIR that there any demand for dowry prior to the demand for scooter which itself was made 2 years prior to the complaint. He also points out that no complaint whatsoever was made to the police about this alleged demand for scooter prior to this FIR. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in State of Punjab v. Kirpal Singh & others, 1991(3) Recent C.R. 495 in support of his contention that this alleged demand for scooter and taunting on that a account would not mean abetment to commit suicide. He also relies upon another decision of this Court in Mohinder Singh v. The State of Punjab, 1986(1) Recent C.R. 540 in support of his contention that when there is nothing to show that the petitioner abetted Iqbal Kaur to commit suicide, he cannot be made liable under Section 306 IPC on the mere allegations that he demanded a scooter and taunted Iqbal Kaur on that account.

The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand contended that Iqbal Kaur had committed suicide only because of the demand for a scooter and she was taunted for not bringing the same.

Taking into consideration the arguments put forward by the learned counsel for the petitioner, but at the same time, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

Ultimately, petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Bathinda.