Punjab And Haryana High Court · 2010

PRESENT: Mr.Parminder Singh-I, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.S.S.Mor, Sr.DAG, Haryana. Mr.R.S.Mamli, Advocate, for the complainant. **** ORDER The present petition for gant of anticipatory bail has been moved on behalf of petitioner Lilu Ram in case FIR No. 203 dated 23.9.2009 under Sections 306/34 IPC registered at Police Station Bhattu Kalan, District Fatehabad. Notice of motion was issued in this case on 30.4.2010 and the following contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner were noted down: “ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the investigation conducted by the police, the petitioner was found innocent and a detailed inquiry was conducted by the DSP and the petitioner is residing separately in a different village, therefore, he is not beneficiary in interest in the land of deceased Rajesh. Learned counsel for the petitioner further Crl.Misc. No.M- 12423 of 2010 -2- submits that there is nothing on record as to how the deceased was being pressurized by the petitioner to transfer the land in the name of his wife.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the case whereas neither he is beneficiary or having interest in the land of deceased Rajesh nor he is involved in the case in any manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner was found innocent in the inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and is residing separately in different village and there is nothing on record to show as to how the deceased was being pressurized by the petitioner to transfer his land in the name of his wife. Learned counsel for the State opposes the bail on the ground that serious and specific allegations are there against the present petitioner and moreover a suicide note was left by the deceased where the name of the petitioner is mentioned with his specific role. The deceased was harassed and physical assault was also given at the hands of the present petitioner. The written suicide note was also found to be written by the deceased on comparison. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the contents of the FIR and other documents available on the file. The case was registered on the basis of statement of Bimla Devi, the mother of the deceased, against the present petitioner and other Crl.Misc. No.M- 12423 of 2010 -3- accused. As per allegations in the FIR, all the accused were putting pressure upon the deceased to transfer land in the name of Bimla Devi, the wife of the deceased and also gave beating to him. A suit was also filed before the Civil Court which was fixed for hearing on 23rd September, 2009 and Rajesh was pressurized to make statement before the Court and on the next day Rajesh consumed tablets of sulphos and committed suicide. A suicide note was also left by the deceased where specific names and roles of the accused were given and reason of committing suicide was also mentioned. It has also been mentioned that because of the harassment and pressure from all the accused, the deceased has committed suicide. Although the petitioner was residing separately but the complainant has specifically mentioned in the complaint that the petitioner is one of the persons who used to visit her son Rajesh along with co-accused and put pressure upon him to transfer his share of land in the name of his wife. During investigation, the police recorded the statement of Smt. Sudesh, daughter of the deceased, who had also implicated the present petitioner for harassment of her father along with other accused. The petitioner has played an active role and specific attribution has been made in the FIR and even in the suicide note written by the deceased, the name of the present petitioner is there. The suicide note has been got compared by the Investigating Officer which has been found to be written by the deceased only. In view of seriousness of the allegations, specific role of the present petitioner, the concession of anticipatory bail cannot be granted to Crl.Misc. No.M- 12423 of 2010 -4- the petitioner. It is a settled principle of law that anticipatory bail is an extra ordinary remedy. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down in case Adri Dharam Dass Vs. State of West Bengal 2005(2) R.C.R (Criminal) 32 that powers exercisable under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are somewhat extra ordinary in character and is only in exceptional cases where it appears that a person may be falsely implicated. So, the petitioner in order to seek the relief of anticipatory bail in this case is required to make out a special case in his favour or the case appears to be false or where the applicant is likely to be harassed unnecessarily due to some extraneous reasons. Similarly, in Bal Chand Jain v. State of M.P. AIR 1977 SC 366, the Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following proposition with regard to grant of anticipatory bail:- “(i) The power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is of an extraordinary character and must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases only. (ii)The said power is not unguided or uncanalised but all the limitations imposed in the preceding Section 437 Cr.P.C., are implicit therein and must be read into Section 438 as well. (iii)In addition to the limitations imposed in Section 437, the petitioner must further make out a special case for the exercise of the power to grant anticipatory bail.” Crl.Misc. No.M- 12423 of 2010 -5- So, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, and the gravity and seriousness of the offence, no ground is made out for granting anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the present petition anticipatory bail is hereby dismissed. However, it is made clear that any observation made here-in- above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. July 21, 2010. raghav (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE