SURAT SINGH & ORS Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the above mentioned two petitions filed by petitioners Surat Singh and Krishan in Criminal Misc. No. 18893-M of 2002 and Om Parkash and Rohtash in Criminal Misc. No. 24113-M of 2002 seeking bail in case hearing FIR No. 4 dated 4.2.2002 registered under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with Police Station G.R.P., Sirsa.

(2.) The case came to be registered on the statement of Vijay Singh son of Het Ram, resident of village Kanwarpura, Police Station, Dhing, District Sirsa. As per his version he had two sons and one daughter. His son Narender along with his family was living separately for the last about four years. His other son Sanjeev alias Sajjan was living with him. Narender was gainfully employed in the trade of buffaloes with his maternal uncle Om Parkash, resident of Chhani Bari for the last one year. He was living at Chattargarh Patti, Sirsa in his house which was construed by him. During the first day of previous month, message was received by the complainant from Narender that he should visit his house as he was having cash with him and that he was also apprehending threat to his life. On reaching there, he found that Narender was not present at his house. He found Chander Bhan, brother-in-law and Gopal, maternal uncle of Narender's wife, resident of Mora Khera present in the house. The complainant looked for Narender on the next day but he could not find any clue about his whereabouts and for that reasons he returned to his residence. Wife and children of Narender had accompanied her brother to village Kuleri. Three days thereafter Narender returned to the house. On receipt of this information, the complainant went there and met him. On enquiry made from Narender, he was informed by him that Om Parkash, his maternal uncle, had embezzled Rs. 2 1/2 lacs by showing loss in the business. Even his house was got transferred by Om Parkash in his own name. His motorcycle and two buffaloes were also taken away by Om Parkash. Meanwhile, Om Parkash also reached there and the complainant had discussed the matter with him. He was informed by Om Parkash that Narender had embezzled the money by showing loss in the business and he had insisted that his money to the extent of Rs. 1,25,000/- be returned to him. He also asked the complainant that he should sell his land or house as the money was needed by him. On 2.2.2002, Om Parkash, his son Rohtash and Krishan Saharan residents of Chhani Bari came to the house of the complainant and enquired about Narender. The complainant informed that Narender had gone to see his brother-in-law, upon which they became furious and abused him. They again asked him to return the money otherwise they would see him and his son. After four-five hours thereafter, Narender came to the Dhani of the complainant and informed him that on the way, Om Parkash, Rohtash and Krishnan Kumar Sarharan in the company of one other person had given. him beating. They had also asked him to arrange the money otherwise they would finish him. On 4.2.2002, Harpat Fauzi, neighbourer of the complainant informed him that he had received a telephonic call to the effect that Narender had committed suicide by consuming poisonous thing at Adampur Railway Station. On receiving this information, the complainant went to Adampur Railway Station along with his brother Dalip Singh, Prem Singh and other persons. He found the dead body of Narender. The police had also recovered one suicide note in which detailed account leading to the cause of death of his son was given. Narender had stated in the suicide note that he had committed suicide by consuming poisonous substance on account of harassment and fear of Om Parkash, Rohtash and Krishan Kumar Saharan. The case is still under investigation.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioners, while pressing for their bail mainly contended before me that taking the allegations stated in the report lodged, on the face value no offence under Section 306 I.P.C. is made out against the petitioners as demand of money made by Om Parkash could not be construed as abatement to commit suicide. It was also submitted by them that no report was.lodged with regard to the injuries stated to have been caused by Surat Singh, Krishan Kumar Saharan, Om Parkash and Rohtash and a totally false story had been put up by Vijay Singh in order to attribute the incident to them by providing a cause of grievance to Narender, son of the complainant. It was further submitted by them that it deserves notice that the complainant is out to settle the score with them because Narender, though of his own volition, had committed suicide. While referring to the version given in the suicide note, which was recovered from the body of the deceased by the Police, it was contended that allegations therein are against Om Parkash and his son Rohtash to the effect that they had partnership business of buffaloes with Narender and in that business Om Parkash had shown the loss and for that reason he was asking Narender to pay his share of the amount to him. The other aspect, according to the counsel for the petitioner, stated in the suicide note was not only with regard to the agreement in respect of sale of house of Narender but also that the payment of the amount had not been made in respect of the said transaction and thus no allegation of cheating or fraud against Surat Singh and Krishan Kumar Saharan was made out in this regard. It was also submitted by him that in the suicide note it was stated that Rohtash had taken away motorcycle of Narender in his absence but the Police during investigation had examined him and on the basis of disclosure statement it was revealed that motorcycle was in fact sold by Narender to Surinder son of Ram Partap and he had also received Rs. 500/- as earnest money from him and the balance amount was to be paid by Surinder to Narender in November 2001 and affidavit to this effect was executed by Narender which is in possession of Surinder as had come out in the statements of Head Constables Bishan Singh and Constable Savtar Singh and their police statements recorded on 23.2.2002 in this regard. It was pointed out by him that the recovery of motorcycle was made by the police on 7.4.2002 and thereafter challan had been filed in Court. This recovery had been planted upon petitioner-accused, Om Parkash, in the report filed.