High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sham Lal @ Sham Sunder vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sham Lal @ Sham Sunder vs State Of Punjab on 25 March, 2009
Cr.Misc. NO. M 2450 of 2009                  1



IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                    Cr.Misc. NO. M 2450 of 2009

                                     DATE OF DECISION : 25.3.2009

Sham Lal @ Sham Sunder

                                                    ......PETITIONER
                           VERSUS

State of Punjab
                                                    ......RESPONDENTS

PRESENT:        Mr. Mrigank Sharma, Advocate
                Ms. R.K.Nihalsinghwala, Sr.DAG. Punjab
                Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate.



M.M.S.BEDI,J.

The petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail in a case

registered at the instance of Asha Rani alleging that her husband Naresh

Kumar consumed poison as his brothers, sisters-in-law and nephew used

to harass him to get the possession of his house. So far as the petitioner is

concerned, he is jeth of the complainant and is alleged to have pressurized

his brother Naresh Kumar to such an extent that he was compelled to

consume poison.

Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed

the petition for bail contending that the petitioner is directly responsible for

the death of Naresh Kumar and that a false plea has been taken that the

deceased did not have good relations with the complainant Asha Rani.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record. The petitioner is alleged to have been responsible for the suicidal

death of Naresh Kumar. It will certainly be a moot point during trial whether

the role attributed to the petitioner would bring his act within the ambit of

Section 107 IPC to constitute abetment for suicide. Besides this the
Cr.Misc. NO. M 2450 of 2009 2

petitioner appears to be a patient of Tuberculosis. His presence in jail

along with his inmates might prove detrimental to them. He has been in

custody for the last three months. Challan has already been presented.

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be

released on bail on furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of

the trial Court. It is specifically observed that in case the petitioner, at any

stage, makes an attempt to tamper with the evidence by threatening the

complainant, it will be open to the complainant or the State authorities to

file an application for cancellation of bail.

March 25 ,2009                                      ( M.M.S.BEDI )
TSM                                                      JUDGE