Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mamta Sharma vs State Of Haryana on 29 October, 2024
Author: Sandeep Moudgil
Bench: Sandeep Moudgil
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142139
CRM-M-53999-2024 -1-
101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-53999-2024
DECIDED ON: 29.10.2024
MAMTA SHARMA
.....PETITIONER
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA
.....RESPONDENT
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL
Present: Mr. G.S. Gopera, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Virk, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
*****
SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL)
1. Relief sought
The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Section
482 BNSS, 2023 for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR
No.212, dated 11.04.2024, under Section 306 IPC, registered at Police
Station Hansi City, District Hansi.
2. Prosecution story setup in the present case as per the version in
the FIR as under:-
"Statement of Daljeet aged about 66 years (Mobile no.
8696303519), S/o Shri Kripa Ram, cast Pandit R/o Sewa
Ram Colony Prem Nagar, near Line, Hansi, stated that I
am resident of the above mentioned address and I used to
ploy an auto riksha. I had 3 children, two girls and a son.
My son Sagar was the youngest one who was unmarried
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142139
and both daughters are married. My son Sagar who used
to do farming was having acquaintance with Mamta
Sharma W/O Vinay Sharma R/O H. No. 2222 Block B
Gali No. 60 Hanuman Kunj Sant Nagar Burari, they used
to talk to each other and Mamta used to call my son
Sagar to Delhi to meet her. Now about 2/3 months ago,
Mamta is messaging my son from her mobile number
9871255341 and asking for money and was repeatedly
asking him to die, due to which my son Sagar remained
depressed and due to repeated harassment by Mamta, he
came under pressure and on the night of 05.04.2024,
under pressure, he in order to end his life, consumed
some poison substance Yesterday i.e. 10.04.2024 and my
son Sagar died. Due to repeated harassment and demand
for money by Mamta, my son Sagar committed suicide. I
have got recorded my statement which I have read and
the same is correct. Legal action be taken against
Mamta, I am presenting to you some messages of Mamta
and a photo of my son Sagar and Mamta. SD/- Daljeet
Attested Prem Kumar HC PS City Hansi Dt 11.04.2024"
3. Contention
On behalf of the petitioner
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no
suicide note left by the deceased and there is an inordinate delay of seven
days in lodging the instant FIR as the same has been registered on
11.04.2024 and the incident took place on 05.04.2024. He further contends
that as per the prosecution story, the allegation against the petitioner are that
he demanded money from the deceased, who allegedly borrowed the same
from the present petitioner and it is well settled in law that if the borrowed
money is demanded by the accused, the same cannot be construed as
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142139
harassment and instigation to commit suicide within the mischief of Sections
107 and 306 IPC. He has further argued that the ingredients of said Sections
are not made out in the instant case as the petitioner has not abetted or
instigated the deceased to commit the suicide. In support of his argument, he
relied upon judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Kishori Lal versus
State of M.P.", (2007) 10 SCC 797 and "Analendu Pal alias Jhantu v. State
of West Bengal" (2010) 1 SCC 707.
On behalf of the State
Learned State Counsel appearing on advance notice, opposes
the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner on the ground that the text
messages and the instagram messages clearly show that the petitioner was
constantly demanding money from the deceased, which resulted into his
death.
4. Analysis
Be that as it may, after given a thoughtful consideration to the
submissions as made, by the counsel for both the parties especially
considering the fact that there is an inordinate delay of 07 days in lodging
the instant FIR and there is no suicide note which shows that the petitioner
in any manner has instigated or abetted the deceased to commit suicide in
addition to the fact that learned State counsel has failed to provide specific
allegations or instances demonstrating the petitioner's role.
In the light of above discussions and facts wherein prima-facie
basic ingredients of Section 107 and 306 IPC are not being made out, it
would be a futile exercise to send the petitioner behind bars for custodial
interrogation, as investigation can be effectively completed with his
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142139
cooperation. Hence, this Court finds no reason to deny the petitioner the
concession of anticipatory bail.
5. Decision
In the light of above, the petitioner is directed to be released on
anticipatory bail subject to her joining investigation with the Investigating
Officer concerned within a period of one week from today, on furnishing of
personal/surety bonds to his satisfaction. The petitioner shall also abide by
the terms and conditions as envisaged under Section 482(2) of BNSS,
which are reproduced below:-
'When the High Court or the Court of Session makes a
direction under sub-section (1), it may include such
conditions in such directions in the light of the facts of
the particular case, as it may think fit, including-
(i) a condition that the person shall make himself
available for interrogation by a police officer as and
when required;
(ii) a condition that the person shall not, directly or
indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any
person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to
dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to
any police officer;
(iii) a condition that the person shall not leave India
without the previous permission of the Court;
(iv) such other condition as may be imposed under sub-
section (3) of section 480, as if the bail were granted
under that section.'
However, it is made clear that in case the petitioner does not
comply with the aforesaid direction of joining the investigation within a
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:142139
period of one week, the order passed by this Court today shall automatically
stands cancelled.
In the aforesaid terms, the present petition stands allowed.
(SANDEEP MOUDGIL)
29.10.2024 JUDGE
Poonam Negi
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
