Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurpreet Ram Alias Gurpreet Kumar Alias ... vs State Of Punjab on 6 September, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
CRM-M-42239-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-42239-2024
Date of Decision: 06.09.2024
Gurpreet Ram @ Gurpreet Kumar @ Kancha and another ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Brijeshwar Vashist, Advocate
for the petitioners.
Mr. Sukhdev Singh, A.A.G., Punjab.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Station Sections
76 26.07.2024 GRP, District 108 of BNS
Jalandhar, Punjab
1. Apprehending arrest for abetting suicide of a person aged more than 80 years in
the FIR captioned above, the petitioners have come up before this Court under Section
482 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, [BNSS], seeking anticipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 14 of the bail petition, the accused declares that they have no
criminal antecedents.
3. Petitioners have earlier filed bail application before the Sessions Court, however
the Additional Sessions Judge did not grant them bail considering the gravity of offence
and serious nature of allegations and did not make any exceptional circumstances to
release them on pre-arrest bail.
4. Facts of the case are being extracted from status report dated 05.09.2024 filed by
concerned DySP which reads as follows:-
"2. That present FIR No.76 dated 26.07.2024 U/ss 108 BNS,
2023 was registered at PS GRP, Jalandhar against Sita Ram,
Gurpreet Kumar@ Kancha i.e. petitioner no.1 and Bhupinder
@ Bhindi i.e. petitioner no.2 on the statement of complainant
Avtar Chand s/o Late Kuldeep Singh, wherein he stated that he
is working as plumber, whereas his father has retired 25 yrs.
back and residing in the house. He is also residing at Dera
Beas, whereas his mother has expired about 20 yrs. Back.
3. That complainant has further stated that he has two
daughters and one son, whereas eldest daughter Yadwinder
Jyoti Sharma Kaur is studying in 12th standard and younger to her namely
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-42239-2024
Prabhjot Kaur is studying in 10th standard and his youngest
son namely Onkar Singh is aged about four years.
4. That complainant has further stated that they have one
plot measuring 10 marlas situated in native village of
complainant, out of the said plot, 5 marlas is in the name of his
father, whereas other 5 marlas is in the name of Sita Ram his
uncle's son.
5. That complainant has further stated that Sita Ram is also.
residing with his family alongwith his wife Raj Rani, son
Gurpreet Kumar alias Kancha and youngest son namely
Bhupinder alias Bhindi.
6. That complainant has further stated that Sita Ram has taken
forcible possession of house of father of complainant and father
of complainant moved a complaint in the panchayat, who has
given undertaking to Sita Ram.
7. That complainant has further stated that on 23.07.2024,
when panchayat was convened, then Sita Ram raised exhortion
that he would not leave the possession on the land, whereas his
son Kancha and Bhindi have brought iron rod (Sabbal) and
attacked upon the father of complainant, who stepped back and
due to this, his father saved from major injury.
8. That complainant has further stated that they already
went back to their house due to fear and then they went to the
police station Patara to lodge a complaint, then opposite party
was called in the police station on 24.7.2024.
9. That complainant has further stated that Sita Ram and his
both sons were present in the police station who have abused
the complainant party and they started teasing the father of
complainant.
10. That complainant has further stated that his father felt
insult and humiliation due to much insult by all these persons
and on the next day his father has committed suicide before the
running train on railway crossing near Dhilwan.
11. That thereafter postmortem of deceased was conducted at
Civil Hospital Jalandhar vide Post-mortem report no.PB/34/24
and as per post-mortem report deceased suffered six injuries
and cause of death has been opined by Medical Officer as " The
cause of death in thus case in my opinion is injury to vital organ
brain due to head injury and hemorrhagic shock. All injuries
are antemortem. Railway Accident cannot be ruled out".
12. That on the next day of occurrence, suicide note was
recovered and as per suicide note deceased committed suicide
due to insult and humiliation caused by accused Sita Ram and
his sons Gupreet Kumar and Bhupinder i.e. petitioners and said
suicide note was sent to FSL and report is still awaited."
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-42239-2024
5. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the deceased was an old, fragile man.
There is no evidence that he had committed suicide, and the possibility of his death due
to accident cannot be ruled out; however, State counsel has strongly opposed such an
argument and submits that the investigation is pointing toward suicide and not towards
accident. State counsel has also referred to a suicide note, which was recovered after the
date of the incident. The substance of the suicide note is that Kuldeep Singh alleged in the
suicide note about beatings and humiliation made by accused, including Kancha. The
petitioner's name has been explicitly named in the suicide note. In the suicide note,
Kuldeep Singh explicitly stated that he was committing suicide because he was
humiliated and beaten by the accused persons, and the petitioner was named with an alias
name, which is also mentioned in the memorandum of parties.
6. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that there is no allegation of abetment
or instigation to commit suicide. Counsel for the petitioner has referred the judgments of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court to substantiate his point of abetment and argued that there is
no evidence of instigation or provocation or incitement and the words which were used
in a fit of anger and emotions would not be counted as an instigation. Counsel further
submits that to bring the case under the purview of Section 108 BNS, the person who is
stated to have abated the commission of suicide must have played an active role by an act
of instigation or felicitation, which is missing in the present case.
7. Counsel further submits that the deceased was an old person and committed
suicide because of his fault and not because of the instigation of the petitioner. State
counsel opposed such submission and referred to the reply and submitted that there is a
clear-cut allegation that petitioners and their associates created so much pressure on the
old man that he was left with no other option but to commit suicide by jumping before
the train near Railway Crossing.
8. An analysis of the above arguments would lead to the conclusion that there is a
suicide note in which the petitioner has been named as Kancha and it explicitly
mentioned that the petitioners and their associates are responsible for his death. At that
stage, it is not expected of an old person to draft his suicide note in such a way that it
contains the words of instigation and abetment, etc. instead, if such words are present, it
would point toward deliberations and fabrication, and its absence might point out towards
the truthfulness and lack of expert advise. This Court is not dealing with regular bail
where accused are in custody but with anticipatory bail, where the investigation has yet to
be carried out.
9. In the complaint, there is a prima facie allegation of the troubles which the
petitioners and their associates had created, which had made the life of the old man a
living hell, and prima facie in his mind he was driven to such a situation where he was
left with no option but to end his life. Regarding the arguments that the Post-Mortem
authenticity of this order/judgment
CRM-M-42239-2024
report does not rule out the cause of death by accident, there cannot be any dispute that
the person who jumps before a train gets injuries. Thus, the other attending circumstances
and evidence becomes crucial, which is the suicide note. Regarding the credibility and
authenticity of a suicide note, the petitioner's counsel has simply made a mere
apprehension that the suicide note might be fabricated. However, the primary
investigation points out its authenticity.
10. A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points
towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further
discussions are likely to prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so.
11. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the
case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
12. Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
06.09.2024
Jyoti Sharma
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
authenticity of this order/judgment
