Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Vikas Bahl, J.
Primaljeet Kaur & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Punjab - Respondent
CRM-M- 48175 of 2021
Decided On : 21-01-2022
306 IPC - Anticipatory Bail - 438 Cr.P.C - 306/34 IPC - 107 of Cr.P.C
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for a case registered under Sections 306/34 IPC. The deceased had committed suicide, and the petitioners, who are his wife and mother-in-law, were accused of being responsible for his suicide. The court considered the allegations and the circumstances surrounding the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the anticipatory bail, noting that the petitioners, who are females, had already joined the investigation and were not required for further investigation as per the stand of the State. The court emphasized that the observations made in the bail petition were only for the purpose of adjudicating the bail petition and should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Issues: The key issue was whether Section 306 IPC was attracted in the case and whether the petitioners were responsible for the deceased's suicide.
Ratio Decidendi: The court referred to previous judgments and emphasized that even in cases where a wife is alleged to be a woman of easy virtue, it cannot be said that she has instigated or aided the commission of suicide. The court highlighted the necessity of mens rea for instigation and observed that the conduct of a spouse, if not up to the expectations of the other spouse, does not necessarily constitute abetment of suicide.
Final Decision: The court allowed the anticipatory bail for the petitioners, emphasizing that the trial would proceed independently of the observations made in the bail petition.
JUDGMENT
ORDER
Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral). - This is a first petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR no.237 dated 05.10.2021 registered under Sections 306/34 IPC at Police Station City Phagwara, District Kapurthala.
2. On 17.11.2021, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
"Learned counsel for the petitioners inter alia contends that in the present case, even if the allegations are taken on face value, then also, no offence under Section 306 of IPC is made out. It is argued that as per the FIR, the alleged incident had taken place 4 days prior to the date on which the son of the complainant had committed suicide. It is further argued that in fact, the said deceased was a drug addict and has thus, committed suicide on account of his own mental health issues. He has also submitted that the third person in the video is Kulraj Singh son of Kirpal Singh. He has relied upon a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled State of Punjab Vs. Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and another reported as 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 562 to contend that in such a situation, offence under Section 306 of the IPC cannot be said to be made out.
Notice of motion.
On asking of the Court, Mr. N.K. Banka, DAG, Punjab, appears and accepts notice on behalf of State of Punjab and Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate appears on behalf of the complainant and seek time to get instructions.
Adjourned to 20.01.2022.
In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioners shall be released on interim bail subject to furnishing personal bonds and surety to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and shall abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C "
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation.
4. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Gurmukh Singh has submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation and are not required for further investigation.
5. Learned counsel for the complainant has opposed the application for anticipatory bail and has submitted that there is video recording recorded 10 minutes before the death, in which deceased Manpreet Singh has specifically named the petitioners, who are his wife and mother-in-law, as being persons responsible for his committing suicide. It is further submitted that the deceased was not a drug addict.
6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the record.
7. A coordinate Bench of this Court in case titled as "State of Punjab Vs. Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and another" reported as 2008 (2) RCR (Criminal) 562 has held as under:-
"1. The present revision petition is directed by the State against the discharge of Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi and Surinder Kumar alias Kala, accused. They were facing trial in case FIR No. 108 dated 31-12-1994 registered at Police Station Nawanshahr under Section 306, IPC. It is stated that Paramjit Singh son of Darshan Singh Hira and his son Amritpal alias Lovely committed suicide and left a suicide note to the effect that his wife Kamaljit Kaur alias Bholi is a woman of bad character. He is fed up with her. Therefore, he along with his son Lovely Amritpal Singh is committing suicide. It is further stated that his wife has illicit relations with three persons namely, Palli of Commando Force, Ludhiana, Kala residing opposite to their house and Ujjal Singh, her real uncle. In the suicide note, he has expressed that in these black days, such bad women are living in the Society. It is further stated that his wife Bholi is a lady of loose character. It is further stated that since Palli has come as a tenant in the house, Bholi has become lady of loose character. It is further stated that Kala had noticed Bholi in objectionable manner with Kala. He wanted in suicide note that if law contemplates action against wedded woman
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the mere conduct of a spouse, even if not up to the expectations of the other spouse, does not necessarily constitute abetment of suicide, and....
The necessity of mens rea for instigation and the requirement of concrete evidence for establishing the offence of abetment of suicide under Section 306 of the IPC.
The importance of mens rea in establishing instigation for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
The need for a clear mens rea and an active act to establish abetment under Section 306 IPC, and the consideration of trial delay due to the pandemic as a factor in granting bail.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, along with the necessity of mens rea and an....
The court considered the lack of a suicide note and the debatable issue of whether an offence under Section 306 IPC is made out as crucial factors in allowing the bail petitions.
The court ruled that mere familial disputes do not constitute abetment of suicide; clear evidence of active instigation is required for prosecution under Section 108 of BNSS, 2023.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intention and continuous course of conduct by the accused to constitute abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC.
The necessity of active instigation or aiding in committing suicide, mens rea, and a direct act intended to push the deceased into committing suicide for conviction under Section 306 IPC.
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
