(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:4)(cid:5)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:5)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:10)(cid:11)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16)(cid:3)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:18)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:15)

(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:3)(cid:8)(cid:5)(cid:15)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:1)(cid:7)(cid:15)(cid:11)(cid:5)

)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:2)(cid:15)(cid:22)(cid:3))(cid:1)(cid:2)(cid:7)(cid:5) ’’’’’(cid:13)(cid:6)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:11)

*$’

)(cid:4)(cid:15)(cid:4)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:12)(cid:3)(cid:13)(cid:10)(cid:2)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:16) ’’’’’(cid:11)(cid:6))(cid:13)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:17)(cid:6)(cid:2)(cid:4)

(cid:8)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15)(cid:22)&(cid:3)(cid:5)(cid:9)(cid:2)+(cid:16),(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:22))’(cid:3)(cid:14)(cid:10))(cid:4)(cid:1)(cid:8)(cid:6)(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:3)-’(cid:3)-(cid:15),)(cid:9)(cid:2)

Present:(cid:8) Dr. Mewa Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Aiman J. Chisti, AAG, Punjab.

****

(cid:3)(cid:2)(cid:6)(cid:6)(cid:11)(cid:14)(cid:15)(cid:3)-’(cid:3)-(cid:15),)(cid:9)(cid:2)(cid:3)(cid:3).(cid:3)(cid:14)’(cid:3)/(cid:3)(cid:3)(cid:9)(cid:11)(cid:15),(cid:3)

This is the first petition filed by the petitioner under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.10 dated 26.02.2024, under Section 306 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Verowal, District Taran Taran.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is 31 years old and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is further submitted that the petitioner has been languishing in judicial custody since 26.2.2024 i.e. nearly 02 years. The charges were framed in this case on 23.02.2024; only two witnesses namely PW1 Charanjit Kaur (mother of the deceased) and PW2 Sukh Dev Singh, have had led their testimony recorded, along with partial statement of third witness in the Court. As per the list, there are as many as 14 witnesses in total and the conclusion of trial will take considerable time. Therefore, he prayed that he deserves to be released on bail.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, reiterating the gravity of abetment to suicide under Section 306 and potential for the petitioner to take undue advantage and try to temper with the evidence if released, has prayed for the dismissal of the application.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and have perused the record.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) no.7284 of 2017 titled as Shabbir Hussain versus The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors. decided on 26.07.2021 has held as under:(cid:8)

“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 andTrial 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. TheHigh 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 lif