IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 22.08.2025 Amandeep Singh Bawa @ Monty ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Anchal Kathuria, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG Punjab.

SURYA PARTAP SINGH , J . (Oral) :

This petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking for bail in a case arising out of FIR 62 dated 09.06.2025, for the commission of offence under Section 108 BNS, Police Station Khanauri, District Sangrur.

2. Allegations against the petitioner are that he refused to pay the share of the deceased and, therefore, the deceased was forced to commit suicide. As per case of the prosecution suicide note was left by the deceased wherein name of the petitioner finds mentioned.

3. It has been contended on behalf of petitioner that there was business dealing between the petitioner and the deceased, the deceased used to drive a canter of the complainant and the petitioner used to hire the same and pay Rs.7,000/- for each trip to the deceased.

4. The contents of the FIR shows that it has been alleged by the deceased in his suicide note that the petitioner failed to pay the money due toward him and, therefore, he was forced to commit suicide.

5. Notice of motion.

6. Advance notice has already been served. Mr. K.D. Sachdeva, DAG Punjab, appears on behalf of respondent-State and waives service.

7. Learned State counsel wants to orally oppose the bail application and does not want to file formal reply to the petition.

8. Learned State Counsel has placed the custody certificate of the petitioner on record.

9. In the present case the contents of the FIR shows that the sole allegation against the accused is that he failed to pay the due amount to the deceased. There is nothing on record to show that he ever instigated the deceased or pushed him to a corner to that extent that he (the deceased) was forced to commit suicide. Merely the dispute with regard to payment in itself cannot amount to a prima facie case of abetment to commit suicide. Otherwise also, the investigation in this case has already been completed and final report before the learned trial Court has already been filed. As such nothing is left to be recovered from the possession of petitioner.

10. In addition to above, it is also relevant to mention here that the petitioner has already served a sentence of 2 months and 11 days and the trial is not likely to be concluded in near future. Otherwise also, detention of petitioner behind the bars is not likely to serve any purpose and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner if released on bail may influence witnesses.

11. If the cumulative effect of all the above mentioned factors, involved in the instant case, is taken into consideration, the petitioner is deserves the benefit of bail.

12. Accordingly, the present petition is hereby allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court. In case, the concerned Court is not available, the learned Sessions Judge would be at liberty to assign the abovesaid case, for the abovesaid purpose, to any other Court.

13. It is however made clear that any observation made herein above is only for the purpose of deciding the present petition and the same shall have no bearing on the merits of the case.

(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)

JUDGE

22.08.2025

Manoj Bhutani