HARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No192 dated 06.09.2017 registered under Sections 306, 34 IPC at Police Station City Kharar.

(2.) Fir was registered on the statement of complainant Nirmla Devi. Complainant alleged that her husband died on 11.07.2016 and she was under stress because of that reason. After some time, she found a diary from the documents of her husband who was working as LIC Agent in Mandi Gobindgarh. In the diary, it was written that the husband of the complainant had committed suicide after getting frustrated from Harjit Singh Saini Majra, Raghbir Singh Saini Majra, Jaswinder Kaur wife of Malkeet singh and one other lady. Complainant presented the diary before the police, wherein names of aforesaid persons were mentioned.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that husband of the complainant died on 11.07.2016, but the FIR came to be registered only on 06.09.2017 after a period of more than 1 year from the alleged occurrence. The allegations do not show any complicity in terms of offence under Section 306 IPC as there was no concerted effort on behalf of the petitioner for abetting the offence in question. Learned counsel further submitted that DDR No.12 was recorded on 12.07.2016 at the instance of the complainant, wherein nobody was blamed by the complainant. Ram Kirpal was alive in PGI, but he also did not make any complaint against anyone. Co-accused Jaswinder Kaur got registered one FIR i.e. FIR No.128 on 21.07.2017 under Sections 406/420/120-B IPC at Police Station Kharar with the allegations that the husband of the complainant took away an amount of Rs.17,32,500/- being LIC Agent. The inquiry was conducted by the higher officer, wherein the complainant could not produce any suicide note. The account statements of co accused Jaswinder Kaur in Canara Bank, Kharar were also considered from where the amount of Rs.17,32,500/- was withdrawn from her account and the same was credited in the account of the complainant. Co-accused Jaswinder Kaur was granted interim bail by the High Court, but her anticipatory bail was ultimately dismissed vide order dated 15.12.2017 in CRM-M No.35328 of 2017 primarily on the ground that the coaccused along with present petitioner were involved in number of cases. Learned counsel further submitted that the case of the petitioner cannot be equated by the decision rendered in the case of co-accused Jaswinder Kaur as there is no connectivity of the petitioner with that of Jaswinder Kaur in the alleged accusation in the present case.