Read Order: Parmod v. State of Haryana

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, April 1, 2022: The High Court of Punjab and Haryana has granted bail to a person implicated as an accused in a case registered against him under Sections 306, 498-A, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for allegedly harassing his wife, which eventually led her to commit suicide. 

The Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal held, 

“… this Court is of the view that complicity of the petitioner in the crime would remain subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and the petitioner, who is in custody for more than 08 months and enjoys an unblemished past, would be entitled to be released on bail as the trial is likely to take time to conclude.”

The instant petition was filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking grant of regular bail to the petitioner in an FIR registered against the petitioner under Sections 306 (abetment to suicide), 498-A (husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty.), 506 (criminal intimidation) of Indian Penal Code, 1860. 

The present FIR emanated from a complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased alleging that the petitioner was married to his younger sister and he constantly harassed her. It was also alleged that the petitioner was an alcoholic and he also did not have a regular job. It was further stated in the complaint that after being fed up with the maltreatment, the deceased moved a complaint before the police and also filed a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (“DV Act”) against Parmod and his parents.

As per the complainant, a panchayat was convened and Seema went back to her parental home about three months back, but the petitioner did not mend his ways thus leading the deceased to commit suicide. 

It was the case of the petitioner’s counsel that the petitioner and the deceased were married for 15 years and that the deceased deserted the petitioner and their children in the year 2019. It was also submitted that besides the complaint filed under the DV Act, she also instituted a petition seeking maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Counsel also submitted that with the intervention of the panchayat, a compromise was effected between the parties in February 2021 as a result of which Seema came back to her matrimonial home and withdrew the cases filed by her. 

Counsel stressed the fact that after Seema returned to her matrimonial home till the time she allegedly committed suicide in 2021, the couple had a smooth married life. It was urged that the prosecution did not possess any incriminating material against the petitioner. Lastly, it was argued that the ingredients of Section 107 IPC were not satisfied and offence under Section 306, IPC was not made out. 

Per contra, opposing the petitioner’s plea, the State Counsel submitted that there was a history of discord between the petitioner and the deceased. He submitted that even after the deceased came back to her maternal home, she suffered at the hands of the petitioner, though no material to this effect could be pointed out. He also submitted that a final report was submitted and charges were framed but none out of 20 prosecution witnesses, were examined.

After having considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties, the Court was of the view that the complicity of the petitioner in the crime would remain the subject matter of debate before the Trial Court and that the petitioner, who was in custody for more than 08 months, enjoyed an unblemished past. 

Thus, without commenting on the merit of the case, the petition was allowed and the petitioner was ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment