Anticipatory bail should be granted unless compelling reasons exist, particularly for first offenders, emphasizing the balance between personal freedom and investigation rights.

JUDGMENT

Anoop Chitkara, J. 

The petitioner apprehending arrest in the FIR captioned above, has come up before this Court under Section 438 CrPC seeking anticipatory bail.

2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declare that she has no criminal antecedents.

3. The prosecution's case is being taken from reply dated 23.05.2024 filed by the

concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:

3. That the law was set in motion by Rakesh Kumar son of Chiman Lal suffered his inter alia statement to the police of P.S. Sadar Muktsar Sahib on 16-03-2024 to the effect that he has been working as conductor at Punjab Roadways Depot at Sri. Muktsar Sahib. He was married with Gunita Rani d/o Kashmir Singh r/o Tarobari about 3 years before. His wife started saying for last 1-1 1/2 years that she would not live with his parents. Due to such reasons his marital discord arose with his wife Gunita and she went to her parental house to live. His In-laws made complaint with the police of PP Ladhuka. Panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute but efforts could not yield any positive result. In another complaint of his In laws at Women Cell Fazilka, he was directed to return the gold jewelry of his wife on 18-3-2024, but the girl side was demanding 3-1/2 tolla of gold whereas he had only 02 tollas. Thereafter his mother in law Pasho-present petitioner, brother in law Major Singh and Monu Singh and his wife Gunita Rani started threatening them to implicate in a FIR under dowry law and to eliminate them. On the relevant day of 16-3-2024, when he was on his duty and returning from Ferozepur to Muktsar, his cousin Raman Kumar informed him through mobile phone about the missing of his father Chiman Singh. He further disclosed to the complainant that when he (Raman Kumar) made a phone to his father Chiman Lal, he narrated about his dilemma at the hand of in-laws of Rakesh Kumar who used to harass him on phone. The deceased Chiman Lal claimed that he was sitting at the side of Ladhuwala Canals and will commit suicide by jumping in canals. The complainant parked his bus at Muktsar Depot and came at Ladhuwala Canals by bus. Where he found motor cycle of his father parked at the bank of canals and recovered suicide note of his father from the side bag of his motor cycle, in which deceased held present petitioner Pasho, Gunita Rani daughter, Major and Monu sons of Kashmir Singh, responsible for the suicide.

4. That on the basis of statement and suicide note of Chiman Lal, DDR No.38 dated 16.03.2024 was registered for the purpose of information and verification. On 20.03.2024, the information received at Police Station that the dead body of Chiman Singh father of Rakesh Kumar was recovered from the Gang Canal near Sadhu wala head, P.S Sadar Ganganagar, finding prima facie offence under section 306/506/34 IPC made out against accused Gunita Rani, Major Singh, Monu Singh and present petitioner Pasho, investigation was launched with the registration of FIR No. 41.

4. Petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions. Petitioner's counsel argued that the custodial investigation would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and family.

5. Counsel for the petitioner seeks bail on the ground that the allegations are bald and the petitioner did not abet the deceased to commit suicide. In para 4 of the petition, it has been mentioned that there were temperamental differences between daughter of petitioner and complainant and the complainant left her at the house of the petitioner (paternal house) and never came back to reconcile the same. Kashmir Singh-husband of petitioner also tried to convince the complainant and his family members but they were adamant on dowry demands due to which they even gave