Asha Soni Alias Asha Rani And ... vs State Of Haryana
2022 Latest Caselaw 14709 P&H

213 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH

                           CRM-M-20944 of 2022(O&M)
                           Date of Decision: 18.11.2022


Asha Soni @ Asha Rani & Anr.
                                                               ...Petitioners
Versus

State of Haryana
                                                              ...Respondent


CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KARAMJIT SINGH


Present:-    Mr. P.K. Ganga, Advocate
             For the petitioners.

             Ms. Harpreet Kaur, AAG Haryana.

             Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for
             Mr. S.P. Singh, Advocate
             For the complainant.
                   ***

KARAMJIT SINGH, J.

The present petition has been filed by the petitioners under

Section 438 Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail in case having FIR No. 359

dated 08.05.2022, registered under Sections 306, 506 read with Section 34

IPC at Police Station City, Sirsa.

The counsel for the petitioners has inter alia contended that the

petitioners are husband and wife and have been falsely implicated in this

case at the instance of complainant who is son of deceased Beant Singh; that

said Beant Singh was facing financial problems and was under debt and was

convicted under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for brevity, the

Act) by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Sirsa vide judgment dated

22.02.2022 (Annexure P-2) and also faced one another criminal complaint

1 of 3

CRM-M-20944 of 2022 =2=

under Section 138 of the Act filed by Hitesh as is evident from Annexure P-

3. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that deceased Beant Singh

committed suicide on 07.05.2022 and as per prosecution version he named

the petitioner in the suicide note left by him. The counsel for the petitioner

further submits that the deceased was related to petitioner No.2 Sham Lal

but he never abetted or incited the deceased to end his life by committing

suicide. The counsel for the petitioners further submits that pursuant to order

of interim bail, the petitioners have joined the investigation with the police.

The State counsel on instructions from ASI Inder Sain has not

disputed the fact that petitioners have joined the investigation with the

police. The State counsel has further submitted that the suicide note has

already been recovered and now nothing remains to be recovered from the

petitioners and they are not required by the police for any further

investigation or custodial interrogation.

The present petition is resisted by the counsel for the

complainant who submits that Beant Singh was compelled to commit suicide

by the petitioners, Chankit Pandey and Sunil Kumar and before ending his

life the deceased left behind suicide note Annexure P-4 wherein he

specifically named the aforesaid persons. The counsel for the complainant

further submits that in the given circumstances the petitioners are not

entitled to get concession of anticipatory bail.

I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the

parties.

Admittedly, Beant Singh committed suicide on 07.05.2022 by

consuming poisonous substance. Both the petitioners are husband and wife.

The alleged suicide note is silent as to why the petitioners used to harass the

2 of 3

CRM-M-20944 of 2022 =3=

deceased. Further, the genuineness and veracity of the said suicide note will

be tested during the trial. Furthermore, as per Annexure P-2 the deceased

was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment under Section 138 of the Act

in a criminal complaint lodged by one Om Parkash. One Hitesh also filed

another criminal complaint against the deceased under Section 138 of the

Act as is evident from Annexure P-3. Thus, making it apparent that the

deceased was facing financial problems and was under debt and he may

have ended his life being financially stressed. The police has already taken

into its custody the suicide note in question and the petitioners have joined

the investigation and as per State counsel the petitioners are no more

required by the police for any further investigation.

In view of the above, no purpose is going to be served even if

the petitioners both of whom are more than 60 years of age, are subjected to

custodial interrogation. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the

order of interim bail dated 16.05.2022 is made absolute. However, the

petitioners are to abide by the conditions envisaged under Section 438(2)

Cr.P.C.

The aforesaid observations are meant only for the purpose of

disposal of the present bail application and are not to be considered as

expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

                                                        (KARAMJIT SINGH )
18.11.2022                                                  JUDGE
Jiten

             Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

             Whether reportable : Yes/No




                                  3 of 3