RANA CHAWLA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case having FIR No. 51 dtd. 29/3/2022, registered under Sec. 306 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Ludhiana.

(2.) The allegations in a nutshell are that there were business dealings between the petitioner and deceased Parminder Pal Singh and that the petitioner owed huge amount to the deceased, which was taken by the petitioner from the deceased on a number of occasions. That when deceased time and again asked the petitioner to return the borrowed amount, he refused to do so on one ground or the other and as such the deceased got upset and committed suicide by hanging himself in his room on the night of 28/3/2022 and the complainant (his wife) came to know about the same the next morning.

(3.) The counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner is falsely implicated in the present case and there was no dispute between the petitioner and the deceased with regard to money transactions as has been alleged in the FIR. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that in the FIR, there are only general allegations that petitioner and other accused Chintu owed certain money to the deceased. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that co-accused Chintu has been granted concession of anticipatory bail by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide order dtd. 7/4/2022 (Annexure P-4) but at the same time, the prayer made by the petitioner for grant of anticipatory bail was declined vide the same order. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no suicide note left behind by the deceased and the prosecution is relying upon one audio clip sent by the deceased to his friends, as per which the petitioner had borrowed Rs.50.0060 lakhs from him and thereafter the petitioner failed to return the same to the deceased and due to same reason, the deceased was ending his life. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that the deceased was having no financial capability to lend such a huge amount to anyone. That during his lifetime, the deceased did not file any suit for recovery of the said amount. That as per the counsel for petitioner, the complainant and her husband lodged one complaint against the petitioner in November 2021, as per which the petitioner borrowed Rs.3.00 lakhs from the deceased with the undertaking that he will return Rs.10.00 lakhs and when he refused to return the same, the said complaint was lodged. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that after enquiry, the said complaint was'filed' by the police. The counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is nothing on the record to prima facie establish that the petitioner is responsible for the death of the deceased and that furthermore the petitioner has joined the investigation with the police.