Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Jitender Kumar - Petitioner
Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh - Respondent
Cr.M.P(M) No.: 249 of 2023
Decided On : 23-02-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 306 – Grant of bail - Offence of abetment of suicide – Charged - Petitioner is that he has abetted the suicide committed by his wife - Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on grounds that he is innocent and has not committed any offence - There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner will be a threat to fair investigation or trial. Any such apprehension can otherwise be duly taken care of by putting the petitioner to appropriate terms - Para 9
Finding of Court :
It is evident from the status report that married life of petitioner and deceased had continued for about fourteen years - There was not even a single complaint either by deceased or any of her family members to the police or any other authority regarding alleged misconduct of the petitioner - Nothing is revealed from status report as regards any specific act of omission or commission committed by petitioner in proximate vicinity of time, when suicide was committed - These observations have been made merely to assess seriousness and gravity of allegations against petitioner - There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner will be a threat to fair investigation or trial - Any such apprehension can otherwise be duly taken care of by putting petitioner to appropriate terms - Most of prosecution witnesses are the relations of deceased from her paternal side - There is hardly any likelihood of such witnesses being influenced by the petitioner.
Result: Instant petition is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Satyen Vaidya, J.
Petitioner is an accused in case FIR No. 07/2023, dated 10.01.2023, registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P.
2. Petitioner is in custody since 10.01.2023.
3. The allegation against the petitioner is that he has abetted the suicide committed by his wife on 07.01.2023. The matter was reported to the police on 10.01.2023 by the father of the deceased. It is alleged that petitioner was residing with his wife (deceased) and son at Rohru in a rented accommodation. He was habitual of drinking and used to harass the deceased in intoxicated condition. The complainant has alleged that deceased had made so many complaints to him but till the date of death of the deceased, no complaint had been made to any other authority whosoever.
4. Petitioner has prayed for grant of bail on the grounds that he is innocent and has not committed any offence. It is submitted that petitioner was married to the deceased for the last about fourteen years. He has a son studying in Class-VII at Rohru. There is no legal evidence to implicate him. It is further submitted that the preliminary investigation is almost complete. Petitioner is already in judicial custody and no fruitful purpose shall be served by keeping him in custody.
5. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail, on the ground that there are serious allegations against petitioner. In case of his release on bail, petitioner may tamper with the prosecution evidence. The investigation is still continuing and the same is likely to be prejudiced by releasing the petitioner on bail.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Additional Advocate General and have also gone through the status report.
7. It is evident from the status report that the married life of the petitioner and deceased had continued for about fourteen years. There was not even a single complaint either by the deceased or any of her family members to the police or any other authority regarding alleged misconduct of the petitioner. Nothing is revealed from the status report as regards any specific act of omission or commission committed by petitioner in proximate vicinity of time, when suicide was committed. These observations have been made merely to assess the seriousness and gravity of allegations against petitioner.
8. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Damdaddi, P.O. Dharada, Tehsil Tikker District Shimla, H.P.. The young child requires his care and custody. It is not alleged against petitioner that he has not been treating his son well. Rather, it is inferable from records that petitioner has hired a rented accommodation at Rohru for educating his son.
9. There is nothing on record to suggest that petitioner will be a threat to fair investigation or trial. Any such apprehension can otherwise be duly taken care of by putting the petitioner to appropriate terms. Most of the prosecution witnesses are the relations of deceased from her paternal side. There is hardly any likelihood of such witnesses being influenced by the petitioner.
10. Petitioner is already in judicial custody. No fruitful purpose shall be served by detaining him in judicial custody for indeterminate period. The investigation can continue fairly even after release of petitioner on bail. Pre-trial incarceration is not the rule.
11. Petitioner is permanent resident of Village Damdaddi, PO Dharada, Tehsil Tikker District Shimla, H.P. and there is no likelihood of his absconding or fleeing from the course of justice.
12. Keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petition is allowed and petitioner is ordered to be released on bail in case FIR No. 07/2023, dated 10.01.2023, registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., on his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction o
Possibility of petitioner tampering with the prosecution evidence is found to be without substance as the material witnesses including complainant has already been examined in the case.
Grant of bail is the rule and refusal is the exception.
It is trite that successive bail applications under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. in the same FIR are not maintainable unless some changed circumstance is shown.
The decision to grant regular bail was based on the lack of criminal antecedents, the examination of material witnesses, and the likelihood of a lengthy trial for the case to conclude.
Grant of Bail - Theft in dwelling house, etc - There is no doubt that grant or denial of bail is entirely discretion of judge considering a case but even so, exercise of judicial discretion has been ....
Court is required to balance rights of petitioner on one hand and public interest on other. Test of objectivity is to be applied.
The right to speedy trial is a fundamental right, and the court emphasized the importance of recording the statement of the minor daughter as a material witness.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
