Usha Rani @ Usha vs State Of Punjab

H.S. MADAAN, J

Cases taken up through video conferencing.

Vide this order, I shall dispose of three petitions for grant of pre-arrest bail i.e. CRM-M-38732-2020 filed by petitioner Usha Rani @ Usha, CRM-M-

40456-2020 filed by petitioner Surinder Singh and CRM-M-41879-2020 filed by petitioner Harpreet Singh, all of them being accused in FIR No.209

dated 29.10.2020 under Section 306 IPC, registered with Police Station City, Nawanshahr, District SBS Nagar.

Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the FIR in this case was got recorded by complainant Shingara Ram son of Bhagat Ram, resident of village

Otaal, Police Station Sadar, Nawanshahar, presently residing at Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, near Disposal factory Road, Nawanshahar, Police Station

City, Nawanshahar, District SBS Nagar, who in the statement got recorded with the police stated that he along with his family has been residing in a

10 marla house at Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Nawahshahar for last six years; his daughter Pooja, aged about 23 years is married, whereas his son

namely Sajan was unmarried. The complainant further stated that he is an old man and does not have any source of income, therefore he wanted to

sell his big house and to buy a small one; he had discussed the matter with his relative Mohinder Singh, Usha, residents of Ward No.1, Balachaur; on

10.8.2020 Mohinder Singh and his wife Usha, Amar Chand son of Bhagat Ram, resident of village Diwanian Mohalla Rahon and another person

namely Vishal came to their house and they told him that a person belonging to Chandigarh was ready to buy his house for Rs.70 lakhs and they would

charge Rs.3.5 lakhs as commission. According to the complainant, he came under their influence and agreed to sell the house. On 18.8.2020,

Mohinder Singh and his wife Usha along with Amar Chand and Vishal came to his house and he paid Rs.3.5 lakhs to them. Thereafter, they received

the money and left the house. However, they put off the matter on one pretext or the other. Then he moved a complaint to SSP, Nawanshahar, which

was marked to Police Station City, Nawanshahar. On 29.9.2020, Mohinder Singh and others compromised the matter with the complainant

undertaking to return the money on 5.10.2020 but they did not do so as a result Sajan got upset and asked his father - the complainant, how would they

survive. On 28.10.2020 at about 7:00 p.m., Sajan came home and told his father, the complainant that he could not see their suffering and did not want

to live. The complainant and his wife put Sajan on a cot, however, Sajan expired. The deadbody of Sajan was taken to village Otaal, from where on

being searched, a suicide note was recovered from the pocket of PYJAMA, of Sajan in which it was written that Mohinder from Balachaur, Usha

from Rahon, Amber Chand from Rahon were brought by my old aged parents in my house and they have committed fraud of Rs.3.5 lakhs and I have

got upset and died, let they be punished. The complainant stated that on account of fraud of Rs.3.5 lakhs committed by the aforesaid persons Sajan

had got upset and died.

After registration of the FIR, the investigation in the case started.

Apprehending their arrest in this case, petitioners/accused had approached the Court of Sessions seeking grant of pre-arrest bail but their such

applications were dismissed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, SBS Nagar. As such, they have approached this Court asking for similar relief by

way of filing separate petitions.

Notice of the petitions was issued to respondent â€" State. Learned State counsel has appeared on behalf of respondent â€" State and accepts notice

on its behalf. He opposes the petitions.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties besides going through the record.

The crucial document in this case is suicide note said to have been left behind by the deceased Sajan. A perusal of the said suicide note duly

incorporated in the FIR, goes to show that he had held Mohinder from Balachaur, Usha from Rahon, Amber Chand from Rahon to be responsible for

his death mentioning that they had committed fraud of Rs.3.5 lakhs due to which he had got upset and died. Though guilt of such persons named in the

suicide note shall be determined during the trial but prima facie it comes out that the three of them named in the suicide note had abetted the suicide by

Sajan.

First coming to CRM-M-38732-2020 filed by petitioner Usha Rani @ Usha. She has come up with a plea that in the FIR she has been mentioned as

wife of Mohinder Singh, which is factually wrong since she is wife of Gurdev Singh; she has nothing to do with any negotiations with regard to sale of

house of the complainant; the main accused in this case is Mohinder Singh. It is further contended on her behalf that there is video clipping of

Mohinder Singh, complainant and his wife Jasbir Kaur indulging in gambling and complainant and his wife had lost money of Rs.3.5 lakhs in gambling

to Mohinder Singh; the complainant was demanding money from Mohinder Singh; the petitioner is landlady of Mohinder Singh, as such she has been

wrongly involved in this case.

I find such explanation to be least convincing. Though in the FIR, the complainant Shingara Ram has referred to her as Usha Rani wife of Mohinder

Singh but then in the suicide note it is not so rather, the deceased had referred to the culprits as Mohinder from Balachaur, Usha from Rahon, Amber

Chand from Rahon. In the suicide note Usha has no where been referred to as wife of Mohinder Singh and their place of residence has also shown to

be different. Therefore, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the fact that she is not wife of Mohinder Singh but wife of one Gurdev Singh.

As regards the story set up by her with regard to the complainant and his wife losing money to Mohinder Singh in gambling and complainant

demanding the said money back from Mohinder Singh and the entire episode being recorded in a video clipping, this Court is not to enter into detailed

analysis of such video clipping and to examine the merits of the case minutely so as to check the veracity of these assertions. It is the job and function

of the trial Court to do so. Even otherwise, the petitioner may put up such plea before the investigating agency and if she is challaned then before the

trial Court but such type of assertions do not help her in advancing her case for grant of pre-arrest bail. It is hard to believe that petitioner being

landlady of Mohinder Singh would be involved in this case without any rhyme or reason more, particularly when there is nothing to show that there has

been any motive for the complainant to do so.

Pre arrest bail is a discretionary relief and is to be granted in exceptional cases and not in routine. It is meant to save the innocent persons from

harassment and inconvenience and not to screen the culprits from custodial interrogation.

The custodial interrogation of the petitioner Usha Rani @ Usha is definitely required for complete and effective investigation. Therefore, as regards

CRM-M-38732-2020 filed by petitioner Usha Rani @ Usha, no case for grant of pre-arrest bail to her is made out. Therefore, CRM-M-38732-2020

filed by petitioner Usha Rani @ Usha stands dismissed.

Whereas regarding CRM-M-40456-2020 filed by petitioner Surinder Singh and CRM-M-41879-2020 filed by petitioner Harpreet Singh, whose name

do not figure in the suicide note of the deceased, they have joined the investigation as stated by their counsel, which fact is conceded by learned State

counsel on instructions from ASI Sukhdev Singh, who has further stated that under the circumstances custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not

required by the investigating agency.

Therefore, the interim bail granted to petitioner Surinder Singh vide order dated 4.12.2020 and to petitioner Harpreet Singh vide order dated 15.12.2020

are made absolute subject to their fulfilling following conditions:

(i) that the petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police officer(s) as and when required;

(ii) that the petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so

as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;

(iii) that the petitioners shall not leave India without the previous permission of the Court; and

(iv) that the petitioners shall surrender their passports before the Investigating Officer and if they are not having passport, then shall file the affidavit in

that regard.

In case the petitioners violate any term and condition on which the bail has been granted to them, the prosecution would be entitled to apply for

cancellation of bail to them.

CRM-M-40456-2020 filed by petitioner Surinder Singh and CRM-M-41879-2020 filed by petitioner Harpreet Singh are allowed accordingly.