AJAY Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Instant petition has been filed under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. praying for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 108, dtd. 18/2/2021, under Ss. 323, 328 and 34 IPC (Ss. 323 and 34 IPC stand deleted during investigation and Sec. 306 IPC was added), registered at Police Station Hisar Sadar.

(2.) As per the factual matrix of the case, the present FIR was lodged on the statement of Anju (deceased) daughter of Prem Singh. It was recorded by the Investigating Officer. It was deposed by the deceased/complainant that her marriage was solemnized on 2/7/1995 with Rajinder. They were blessed with two kids from this marriage. Thereafter, differences took place between the husband and wife and she took divorce from the Court of competent jurisdiction in 2013-2014. Thereafter, she came in contact with Ajay i.e. the petitioner and they had physical relationship as well. From the last 10 years, she was in relationship with Ajay, though there was no documentation regarding their relationship. As she could not talk to Ajay from the last 8-9 days so she went to Behbalpur on 16/2/2021 to meet him. She found Ajay andhis mother at home. Ajay's mother was not happy with her presence and she started abusing and beating the complainant. She called Ajay and thereafter, both gave beatings to her. It was further deposed that Ajay and her mother mixed something in water and made her drink. Thereafter, Ajay left the home and she followed her. Ajay boarded a bus to Hisar and she also boarded the bus. Thereafter, she started feeling uneasy and started vomiting. Ajay asked her to sit inside the bus stand. However, she became unconscious. The passengers sprinkled water on her face and she regained consciousness. She was admitted in the hospital. On the basis of the deposition of deceased, FIR was lodged. As subsequent, on the very next day in the hospital, the complainant died. The investigation commenced and during investigation, the offence under Sec. 302 IPC was deleted. Hence, the petitioner is being prosecuted for the offences under Ss. 306, 323, 328 and 34 IPC. The petitioner was arrested on 24/2/2021. He approached the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar for grant of bail. After hearing the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar declined the bail vide order dtd. 6/5/2021.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the present case is nothing but an abuse of the process of the Court. He submits that both the petitioner and the deceased were of the age of majority. The deceased was married and thereafter divorced. She was mother of two children. He submits that as per the allegations in the FIR, it is admitted fact that the petitioner and the deceased were in consensual relationship. There was no coercion of any nature, whatsoever, from the side of petitioner with the deceased. He has contended that there was a compromise between the petitioner and the deceased before the panchayat, where they agreed to not to have anyrelationship thereafter. From the facts and circumstances, no case under Sec. 306 read with Sec. 107 IPC is made out as the petitioner cannot be said to have instigated the deceased to commit suicide. He further contended that as per the FSL report, on conducting post-mortem, aluminium phosphide was detected. He has submitted that the poison detected has pungent smell and the same can never be administered forcefully. He submits that the petitioner has never been involved in any other criminal case. He has submitted that the investigation in this case is already complete and after framing of the charges, evidence is being recorded by the trial Court. Thus, the petitioner deserves to be granted bail.