The main legal point established is that for conviction under Section 306 IPC, there must be a clear mens rea and an active act or direct act leading to suicide, and mere harassment without positive instigation or aiding of suicide would not constitute the offence.

JUDGMENT

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral) - Prayer in the present petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.6 dated 08.01.2022 registered under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Lambra, District Jalandhar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a 20 years old young girl against whom the present FIR has been registered by the father of Ajay Kumar on the allegations that the said Ajay Kumar was friendly with the present petitioner and he used to talk to the petitioner on phone and wanted to solemnize marriage with her and on 07.01.2022, the said Ajay Kumar had gone outside the housewhile talking to the petitioner on mobile phone and on 08.01.2022, he alleged that his son had committed suicide and it has been alleged in the FIR that the father of the deceased i.e. the complainant had a doubt that his son had committed suicide because of the present petitioner.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, there is no suicide note. It is further submitted that there is nothing to even remotely show that there was any relationship between the petitioner and the said Ajay Kumar. It is argued that even in case, Ajay Kumar wanted to marry the present petitioner and the petitioner refused to marry the said Ajay Kumar and the said Ajay Kumar had committed suicide on that pretext, the same would not make out an offence under Section 306 of IPC. It is further argued that even as per the FIR, it is not even the case of the father of the deceased that the deceased had informed him that he had a liking for the present petitioner or that he wanted to marry the present petitioner or the present petitioner harassed him. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. He has relied upon the judgment dated 26.07.2021 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) no.7284 of 2017 titled as "Shabbir Hussain vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors.".

4. Notice of motion.

5. On advance notice, Mr. Sarabjit S. Cheema, AAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the State and has submitted that he is fully prepared to argue the matter and assist this Court. He hasopposed the present petition for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner and has submitted that as per father of the deceased, it is on account of the fact that the present petitioner did not marry the deceased, that the deceased had committed suicide.

6. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shabbir Hussain's case (Supra), has held as under:-

"On 10.09.2014, due to certain matrimonial dispute, Roshan Bee, wife of deceased Firoz Khan moved to her parental home. On 22.09.2014, Firoz Khan committed suicide in his house by consuming poison and also left four suicide notes.

Shabbir Hussain, brother of the deceased - Firoz Khan, preferred complaint i.e. Crime No. 1403/2014, which was registered against respondent Nos.2 to 4 under Section 306/34 IPC. After investigation, chargesheet was filed against respondent Nos.2 to 4 and Trial commenced against respondent Nos.2 to 4. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 preferred Criminal Revision No. 725/2016 under Section 397/401 Cr.P.C. before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Indore. The High Court allowed the Criminal Revision filed by respondent Nos.2 to 4, aggrieved by which, the petitioner has preferred this special leave petition.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the High Court committed an error in allowing the Criminal Revision, especially after 10 witnesses had already been examined. He referred to the suicide notes that were written by the deceased Firoz Khan, to support his submissions that Firoz was harassed by respondent Nos.2 to 4, due to which he took his own life. He argued that abetment of the offence of suicide by respondent Nos.2 to 4 is prima fac