The Punjab and Haryana High Court recently comprising of a bench of Justice Aman Chaudhary while dealing with a petition under section 438 CrPC for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in an FIR registered under Sections 306 IPC for abetment of suicide, held that merely because an accused resides abroad is no ground to deny anticipatory bail. (Kulwinder Kaur vs State of Punjab)
Facts of the case
The present petition was filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case registered under Sections 306, 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the present FIR is not made out the petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased husband, on account of the fact that the incident in question is of 25.09.2020, whereas the petitioner had left for Canada in February, 2020 as is apparent from the FIR and since then had remained there, including the time of registration of the FIR.
He further submitted that there is no specific allegation qua on the role of the petitioner except general one's. He also submitted that the suicide note has been produced after 15 days of the incident, authenticity of which is also doubted. He further submitted that there has been no proceeding taken out by the police authorities in this regard despite the FIR having been lodged on 26.09.2020, about two years ago.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner is ready and willing to join investigation during any period as the police authorities would indicate.
He relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in Hiteshkumar Vadilal Shah & 1 vs State of Gujarat (CRM No.9041 of 2012) decided on 28.06.2012, and submitted that there is no bar for a person, who is residing abroad to file for anticipatory bail application, reasonable apprehension of arrest is the only necessity for filing the same.
Learned State counsel submitted that the petitioner has been specifically named in the FIR and in the suicide note wherein the allegations levelled against the petitioner is that money was being demanded from the deceased.
Courts Observation and order
The bench at the very outset observed, "Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation on or before 15.11.2022. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, she shall be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the Arresting Officer, subject to compliance of the conditions under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
The bench however clarified that if the petitioner does not join and cooperate with the Investigating Agency within the stipulated time as granted by this order, the interim order shall be deemed to have been vacated.
Post to be Updated when Copy of Judgment is available.
Picture Source :
