AKHIL SOOD Vs. STATE OF H P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since both the petitions arise out of a common FIR, hence they are liable to be disposed, of, by a common order. The instant petitions, stand instituted by the bail petitioners, under Sec. 439 Crimial P.C. wherethrough they seek an order for theirs' being released from judicial custody, whereat they stand extantly lodged, for theirs' allegedly committing offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, and, Sec. 201, read with Sec. 34 of the Indian Penal Code, in case FIR No. 132 of 2018 of 21.12.2018, registered at Police Station, Drang, District Mandi, H.P.

(2.) One Akhil Sood, is, the son born from the womb, of the, previous deceased wife of co-accused Aneet Sood. Co-accused Aneet Sood thereafter contracted a marriage with one Surendra Sood. The afore marriage, was, solemnized in the year 1996. However, the brother of the victim as well as her sister, disclosed, that immediately subsequent to the solemnizing of marriage inter-se Aneet Sood, and, the afore Surendra Sood, rather quarrels erupting amongst them, however, theirs' being resolved. The prosecution witnesses, in their statements, recorded under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. unanimously disclose, qua, in the year 2004, their deceased sister/victim being subjected to physical cruelty, yet, the afore dispute, occurring inter-se the victim, and, Aneet Sood, rather stand settled, and, the victim being sent to her matrimonial home. Since the year 2004, upto, the commission of suicide, the, statements recorded under Sec. 161 Crimial P.C. of, the brothers, and, sister of the deceased, unveil, qua neither physical or mental harassment, being purportedly perpetrated, upon the victim, by the co-accused. The commission of suicide by the victim occurred, on 20.12.2018, and, the penal instigatory act bearing proximity, vis-a-vis, the commission of suicide, is, comprised in a telephonic communication, made, 24 hours earlier thereto by the deceased, to her sister, with a narration therein, that, co-accused is rather harassing her, owing to shifting of an almirah, from, her room. The afore purported instigatory act, though, bears proximity, vis-a-vis, the ill-fated incident, yet, prima facie, it also enjoined to be discerned whether it constitutes, the, relevant potency, for, hence goading, the, commission, of, suicide, and, also concomitantly qua the afore offences being well founded. For making a determination, qua the aforesaid facet(s), the factum, that, the alleged incriminatory act, is merely grooved, in, the shifting of the almirah, and, when the afore act, is minimal in nature, and, could be resolved, as, were the earlier disputes (a) thereupon it appears that the afore purported instigatory act, does not carry, the relevant penal potency, for this Court, hence construing qua it constituting an instigation, for the deceased, to, commit suicide.

(3.) Furthermore, since the co-accused one Shweta, has been granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge concerned, and, when the said order rather has not been challenged by the State, thereupon with the afore order hence acquiring conclusivity, hence in parity therewith, rather the bail applicants are afforded the indulgence of bail.