Sapna & Another vs State Of Punjab

Rajbir Sehrawat, J

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under Section 438 Cr.P.C for grant of anticipatory/pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.216 dated

11.12.2019 registered under Section 306 IPC, at Police Station Adampur, District Jalandhar Rural.

The allegations, in brief, are that the son of the complainant was married with petitioner No.1 on 27.02.2019. However, right from day one, petitioner

No.1, in collusion with her father, used to harass the son of the complainant. Reason for this was that the complainant happeed to be abroad and in

India only the wife of the complainant and his son used to reside. As per the allegations petitioner No.1 used to repeatedly harass her husband-

deceased and his mother, insisting that she should be sent abroad. The deceased son and the wife of the complainant used to inform the complainant

on phone in this regard. Additionally she also developed illicit relations with another person and intended to marry him. In these entire events, even the

sisters of the complainant used to instigate her. As per the allegations, petitioner No.2, who is serving in police, also used to threaten the deceased all

the time. Feeling harassed to the maximum, the deceased consumed poison and ended his life. Just two days before this incident, the complainant

received a call from the Police Station Model Town, Hoshiarpur that Sapna-petitioner No.1 had moved a complaint against the deceased and the

complainant and that the complainant had to appear before the police on 09.12.2019. In this situation, the deceased committed suicide on next day i.e.

on 10.12.2019. Hence the present FIR has been registered.

The counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the case against the petitioners is totally concocted. They have never instigated or harassed or

humiliated the deceased or the complainant. Still further it is submitted that; rather; it was deceased and the complainant who were harassing

petitioner No.1. Therefore, petitioner No.2 had lodged a complaint with the police against the deceased and the complainant. It is further submitted by

the counsel for the petitioners that, in fact, history of the family of the complainant shows that the complainant had earlier got married. However, he

had divorced his wife. Thereafter he married again. At present it is his second wife only who is alive. Even the deceased son of the complainant was

earlier married. However, that marriage ended just after eight months. The marriage of petitioner No.1 with the deceased was also the second

marriage. Hence, the sequence of the events would show as to under what kind of pressure the deceased might have been and he might have gone in

depression on account of these situations. Therefore, it is only because of the mental weakness created by this depression, which might have led the

deceased to end his life. It is further submitted that in fact on 07.12.2019, petitioner No.1 was shunted out of the house and had gone to her maternal

uncle. Petitioner No.2 had lodged a complaint with the police on 08.12.2019 against the complainant and his son-deceased and on 10.12.2019 the son

of the complainant committed suicide. Hence, petitioner No.1 could not be held responsible because she was already away from the house and she

had already raised her grievance qua harassment by the complainant and the deceased. To buttress his claim the counsel for the petitioners has also

relied upon the judgments rendered by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the cases Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar versus State of Madhya Pradesh,

2002(2) RCR (Criminal) 687 and K. V. Prakash Babu versus State of Karnataka, 2017(1) RCR (Criminal) 60; one judgment rendered by High Court

of Allahabad in case Asha Shukla versus State of UP & another, 2002 Crl L.J. 2233 and one judgment rendered by High Court of Gujarat in case

State of Gujarat versus Pradyuman Ramanlal Mehta and others, 1999 Crl. L.J. 736.

It is further submitted that for allegation of abetment to suicide to sustain, there has to be a positive act on the part of the accused. However, in the

present case there is no allegation of any specific positive participation of the petitioner in the process of commission of suicide by the deceased.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Sidakmeet Sandhu, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

Learned State counsel, being instructed by ASI Harpreet Singh, has submitted that there are specific allegations against the petitioners. Moreover, the

deceased has left a detailed suicide note, giving complete narrative of his grievances and the sequence of facts which led to the ultimate step being

taken by him. It is further submitted that as per the allegations, petitioner No.2 is serving in the police department. Therefore, he had been harassing

the deceased and his family members. Since the matter pertains to the relation between husband and wife, therefore, the investigation of the case

would require extraction of intricate details of the circumstances which constituted the factual gamut forcing the deceased to commit suicide. Hence,

the custodial interrogation of the petitioners would be required.

No doubt, the accused as a citizen has a fundamental right to life and liberty. However, that right to life and liberty can very well be curtailed in

accordance with the procedure established by law. As per the procedure prescribed for Criminal Administration of Justice, the normal procedure for

curtailing the life and liberty of the accused, Cr.P.C. prescribes that the Investigating Officer can arrest an accused even without warrant and without

assistance /interference of the Court. However, to ensure that a person is not unduly harassed, at least in those cases, where the circumstances are

leading, predominately, towards ex-facie innocence of the accused, the Courts have been given special and extra-ordinary power under Section 438

Cr.P.C. This statutory power of granting pre-arrest bail is so extraordinary that it is not even available in all parts of the country; and it is not available

even through-out the country qua some offences under some special statutes. Hence, right to get anticipatory bail is not any fundamental right. The

provision of Section 438 Cr.P.C. provides only a remedy to an accused and leaves the extent of right to liberty to be decided by the Court.

Coming to the fact of the present case, there are specific allegations against the petitioners. As per the allegations right from the day one, petitioner

No.1 had been harassing the deceased for sending her abroad. Over and above that, petitioner No.1 is alleged to have maintained illicit relation with

the person named in the FIR. This fact had come to the knowledge of the deceased-husband of petitioner No.1. Not only this, petitioner No.2,

allegedly misusing his position of being a police man, also manipulated a complaint against the family of the deceased just two days before the suicide

by the deceased. In this complaint the police had already summoned entire family of the deceased. Given these circumstances, it cannot be ruled out

that the deceased was put under such a tremendous pressure that he could not avoid taking of the final step. Hence, the acts alleged against the

petitioners are of such proximity in time, vis-Ã -vis the suicide by the deceased, that this may qualify as an abetment as well. Although the prosecution

would be deciphering the entire sequence of the facts during investigation, however, at this stage, the fact remains that there are specific allegations,

which according to suicide note, have led to the unfortunate event of suicide by the deceased. Hence, this court does not find any ex-facie innocence

on the part of the petitioners, vis-Ã -vis the allegations leveled against them.

Moreover, the husband of petitioner No.1 has committed suicide; therefore, the events which have led to the incident are of intricate details which are

surrounded by secrecy of intimate relation between the husband and wife. It is only the interrogation of the petitioners, particularly, petitioner No.1,

which can disclose the entire sequence of correct facts. For that purpose, the police would definitely require custodial interrogation of both the

petitioners. Therefore, at this stage, if the petitioners are granted protection against their arrest, that would definitely hamper the free and fair

investigation on the part of the police.

Although the learned counsel for the petitioners has relied upon the judgment rendered in the cases Sanju @ Sanjay Singh Sengar (supra); K. V.

Prakash Babu (supra); Asha Shukla (supra) and State of Gujarat (supra), however, this court finds the judgments to be distinguishable on the

particular facts of this case. Moreover, the law laid down in the judgments, though need not be disputed, would be applicable during the course of the

trial. The present case is at the initial stage of investigation. The prime consideration at this stage is extraction of the correct facts pertaining to the

alleged offence. Hence, the judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioners are of no assistance to the petitioners.

Although the counsel for the petitioner has referred to family history of the deceased to brand him as a person under depression, however, the alleged

history, rather, shows that the deceased had already with stood all those upheavals and had surpassed them. Only thereafter he would have been

ready to marry the petitioner No.1. So this court does not find any force in this argument as well.

In view of the above, but without commenting anything more on merits of the case, the present petition is dismissed. However, nothing observed

herein above shall affect merits of the case during the trial, if any.