The Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a recent judgment, emphasized the critical need for robust legal frameworks to address financial disputes effectively, stating that proper laws on money recovery could have averted a tragic suicide. Justice Anoop Chitkara, while granting anticipatory bail to Arshdeep Singh alias Arsh and another petitioner, highlighted systemic gaps that contributed to the victim’s despair.
Background of the Case
The case pertains to the suicide of Mandeep Singh, a property consultant from Tarn Taran district, Punjab. Singh allegedly took his own life after being cheated of ₹80 lakh in a property deal by the accused, including Arshdeep Singh and others. Singh’s suicide note, recovered during the investigation, accused the petitioners and co-accused of withholding the money and ruining his business, leaving him in a state of extreme distress.
The FIR, numbered 80 and registered on July 19, 2024, at Bhikhiwind Police Station, included charges under Section 108 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, and Section 27 of the Arms Act.
Legal Issues Involved
The key issues revolved around:
1. Alleged Abetment to Suicide: Whether the accused’s actions amounted to instigation under the law.
2. Custodial Necessity: Determining whether custodial interrogation was essential for justice.
3. Systemic Legal Gaps: The lack of adequate laws to handle financial disputes efficiently, which the court deemed a contributing factor to the tragedy.
Court Proceedings and Observations
Justice Anoop Chitkara noted the allegations against the accused, which included usurping the victim’s money and ignoring repeated requests for its return. The victim, overwhelmed by financial ruin, resorted to suicide.
The court observed, “The instigation to commit suicide would not have come if the laws were suitably drafted and enacted to tackle and deal with this kind of situation. Without adequate and proper laws, even the police are rendered helpless.”
Court’s Decision
While granting anticipatory bail, the court underlined that pre-trial incarceration should not mirror post-conviction sentencing. It held that prima facie evidence, including the suicide note and call records, sufficed to frame charges but did not justify custodial interrogation at this stage.
The court directed:
– Formation of a Special Investigation Team (SIT), led by a Deputy Superintendent of Police, to investigate further.
– The accused must surrender any firearms and comply with stringent bail conditions.
– Provisions for protecting witnesses and ensuring no tampering with evidence.
Justice Chitkara underscored the balance between individual liberty and the necessity of a fair trial, referencing precedents from the Supreme Court of India.
