Punjab-Haryana High Court
Devender Singh vs State Of Punjab on 7 November, 2017
Author: Surinder Gupta
Bench: Surinder Gupta
CRM-M-21951 of 2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
1. CRM-M-21951 of 2017
Date of Decision: 07.11.2017
Devender Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent
2. CRM-M-22542 of 2017
Mehal Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajiv Malhotra, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-21951-2017
Mr. Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Pratham Sethi, Advocate
for the petitioner in CRM-M-22542-2017
Mr. C.L. Pawar, Sr. D.A.G., Punjab
Mr. Sandeep Wadhawan, Advocate
for the complainant.
*******
SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral)
Present petitions have been filed under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail to petitioners in case FIR No. 88 dated 27.04.2017 registered for offences punishable under Sections 306 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC'), at Police Station Cantonment Amritsar, District Amritsar.
Petitioner-Mehal Singh in CRM-M-22542-2017 is Principal of Khalsa College, Amritsar while petitioner-Devender Singh in CRM-M-
1 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2017 02:07:43 ::: CRM-M-21951 of 2017 -2- 21951-2007 is the Registrar of that college. Harpreet Singh (since deceased) was student of the college and committed suicide on 26.04.2017 by hanging from a fan in the room of his hostel. Complainant, who is father of deceased, was informed by other students of the college that name of Harpreet Singh was in the list of students, who had been detained from giving exam due to shortage of lectures. On 26.04.2017, he had to appear for the practical for which he required permission of Principal, Registrar and H.O.D. The other detained students were allowed permission but Hapreet Singh was not given permission as he was member of Khalsa College Mess Committee and had been raising his voice against managing committee of the college. Due to this reason he was not given sanction to appear in practical examination on the ground of shortage of lectures. On the day of incident, he had gone to Dr. Randeep Kaur, H.O.D., where Arish Kumar and Raghubar, other students whose lectures were also short, were also present. Hapreet Singh had told that he was preparing for M.Sc. Entomology as a result of which he could not appear in classes, resulting in shortage of his lectures. At this Madam Bal (Dr. Randeep Kaur) told him that he could not clear B.Sc. Agriculture, as such, there is no question of clearing M.Sc. When Harpreet Singh asked for solution of his problem, Madam Randeep Kaur asked him to keep on making round to office of Principal and Registrar. Madam Randeep Kaur also told him about the fine which the deceased expressed his inability to pay being a poor person. He had intimated complainant on telephone that he is feeling perturbed because of his name in the detained list. He had visited Principal, Registrar and H.O.D. several times but they were not hearing him and this will result in wastage of his one year. Due to mental stress and torture he committed 2 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2017 02:07:44 ::: CRM-M-21951 of 2017 -3- suicide.
Learned counsel for petitioner-Devender Singh has argued that the petitioner is posted as Registrar, who deals with administration of the college and has nothing to do with academics or grant of sanction to students whose lectures are short to appear in exams. This is looked after by H.O.D., who in the present case is Dr. Randeep Kaur.
Learned counsel for petitioner-Mehal Singh, who is principal of the college, has argued that lectures of the deceased were short and he was detained from appearing in the exams. He made requests to appear in the practical examination, which was allowed and this fact is evident from the presence sheet of practical examination held on 26.04.2017, which bear his name and signatures. This belies the allegation that he was detained from appearing in the practical examination. This fact is also not disputed that the deceased had not been regularly attending classes, resulting in shortage of his lectures. He had also tried to explain his shortage of lectures by giving the reason that he was preparing for M.Sc. Entomology. The deceased had not left behind any suicide note and even if he had been detained from appearing in exams due to shortage of his lectures, this could not be termed as abetment by petitioners to the deceased, who committed suicide.
Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for complainant has argued that the deceased was brilliant in studies. He was vocal and raising his voice against corruption and mismanagement in the college. Learned counsel appearing for complainant while explaining appearance of deceased in practical has argued that on 26.04.2017, the deceased was allowed to appear in practical examination but was called 3 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2017 02:07:44 ::: CRM-M-21951 of 2017 -4- time and again in the office of H.O.D. and Principal and this put lot of stress on him. It was because of the attitude of management i.e. Principal, Registrar and H.O.D. of the college that Harpreet Singh was compelled to take extreme step to commit suicide.
Learned State counsel further submitted that the investigation in this case is in progress. The police has yet to determine the cause of committing suicide by Harpreet Singh, who had not left behind any suicide note and to find as to who was responsible for abetting him. The students, who appeared with Harpreet Singh have stated that during the practical examination, he was called time and again by H.O.D. and Principal and their custodial investigation is required.
It is quite unfortunate that a young boy, who was studying in the college to make his career, has committed suicide. So far as plea of complainant that due to shortage of lectures, the deceased was detained from appearing in the practical examination, the same appears to be not correct as Harpreet Singh had appeared in the practical examination. This fact that he was called by H.O.D. and Principal, when he was appearing in the practical examination and what transpired during those meetings, is to be proved by prosecution by leading evidence during trial. It is not disputed that lectures of the deceased were short and he could not appear in the exam. He has sought concession and permission to appear in the exams as a special case. The permission appears to have been allowed to him by permitting him to appear in the practical examination. As to whether college has violated any rule while putting the name of deceased in the detained list and denying him permission to appear in the exam, is a fact to be seen by the investigating officer from the college record. There is nothing that 4 of 5 ::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2017 02:07:44 ::: CRM-M-21951 of 2017 -5- Registrar of the College in any manner dealt with grant of permission to deceased to appear in exams.
Keeping in view above facts but without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, these petitions are allowed and orders dated 14.06.2017 and 22.06.2017 are made absolute till the presentation of challan, subject to the following terms:-
(i) that petitioners shall make themselves available for interrogation by the police as and when required;
(ii) that petitioners shall not, directly or indirectly, make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the accusation against them so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer;
(iii) that petitioners shall not leave India without the prior permission of the Court.
(iv) that petitioners will seek regular bail on the presentation of challan in Court.
November 07, 2017 ( SURINDER GUPTA )
jk JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
5 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 11-11-2017 02:07:44 :::