Crl.M.No.M-16520 of 2009 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl.M.No.M-16520 of 2009 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 30.7.2009
Bharat Bhushan and others
....Petitioners.
Vs.
State of Punjab
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.R.K.Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab.
Mr.Parminder Paul Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.(Oral)
The petitioners have applied for anticipatory bail in case
registered vide FIR No.90 dated 19.5.2009 under Sections 306/34 IPC at
Police Station City Sunam, District Sangrur.
The FIR has been registered on the statement of Raj Kumar s/o
Tarsem Chand. The gist of FIR is that his cousin Renu Rani has been
borrowing amount from his son Honey Kumar (since deceased) from time to
time. Two months prior to the occurrence, she had borrowed a sum of
Rs.15,000/- from the deceased. On 12.5.2009, when the deceased had gone
to the house of Renu Rani, her brothers Bharat Bhushan, Vishal Kumar
threatened him not to visit her house for demanding money otherwise he
would have to face dire consequences. They had also caused injuries to the
deceased on the said day. On 18.5.2009, the petitioners had visited the shop
Crl.M.No.M-16520 of 2009 -2 –
of the complainant Raj Kumar to say that the case registered against them be
withdrawn and again threatened the deceased with dire consequences, who
being scared, ultimately consumed the tablets of Sulphas and died on
9.5.2009.
Apprehending arrest, the petitioners had applied for bail before
the Court below vide bail application No.123/2.6.2009 which was dismissed
by Sessions Judge, Sangrur on 9.6.2009.
Counsel for the petitioners has argued that even from reading of
the FIR, no offence under Section 306 IPC is made out as none of the
ingredients of Section 107 Cr.P.C. are attracted. It is submitted that due to
the minor altercation on 12.5.2009, proceedings under Section 107/151
Cr.P.C. were initiated against both the parties by the police and it was
complainant’s side who had threatened the petitioners with dire
consequences. It is further argued that the complainant party is under threat
as many persons have initiated civil and criminal proceedings against them
as a result of which the complainant ultimately was under depression which
might be the cause of the suicide committed by Honey Kumar (deceased).
As against this, counsel for the State has vehemently argued
that the petitioner has committed a serious offence as they compelled a
young boy of 21 years of age to commit suicide and since investigation are
at the initial stage, therefore, their anticipatory bail should not be allowed.
I have heard both the learned counsel for the parties.
As per the prosecution story, both the petitioners Bharat
Bhushan @ Happy and Vishal Kumar @ Mintu had threatened Honey
Kumar (deceased) on 12.5.2009 and caused him injuries, which is apparent
from MLR of the deceased in which three injures are shown. Honey Kumar
Crl.M.No.M-16520 of 2009 -3 –
(deceased) made a statement before the police on 13.5.2009 as a result of
which the petitioners were challaned under Sections 107/151 Cr.P.C. but
that did not stop the petitioners to again visit the shop of the deceased
on 18.5.2009 and to again threaten him. It appears that harassment caused
by the petitioners to Honey Kumar (deceased) was to such an extent that
they forced him to commit suicide.
In view of the seriousness of the offence, I do not find it to be a
fit case for grant of anticipatory bail and hence the same is hereby
dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
30.7.2009 JUDGE
Meenu