Crl.Misc. No.M- 1631 of 2010 v. Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Special Crime Branch, Chandigarh

case RC No. 09(5)2008/SCB/(Number in FIR appears as RC 0512008(S)0009), Chandigarh, dated 17.06.2008, under Section 306 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, Police Station Special Crime Branch, CBI, Chandigarh.

2. The instant case was registered by the Special Crime Branch of Central Bureau of Investigation, Crl.Misc. No.M- 1631 of 2010 --2-- Chandigarh, as per the order dated 17.03.2008, rendered by this Court, in Civil Writ Petition No.11411 of 2007, filed by Ram Krishan Kailash son of late Budh Ram, r/o United Engineering Works, Moudha Paru, Raipur, Chattisgarh, father of Sunil Kumar Kailash, (now deceased).

3. In the original FIR, got recorded by Ram Krishan Kalash, father of Sunil Kumar,(now deceased), it was stated by him that his son Sunil Kumar Kailash was married to Taruna d/o Mohan Lal Chaudhary, r/o Abohar and out of this wedlock a daughter aged about 3-1/2 years was born. Sometime before 5.6.2003 (the date of occurrence), Sunil Kumar and Taruna developed differences, due to which Taruna used to fight with Sunil Kumar, over trivial issues.

4. On 26.02.2003 Taruna left her matrimonial home at Raipur and reached her parents place Abohar (Punjab). In march 2003 Sunil Kumar came to Abohar to bring back Taruna, but her father did not send her with him. On

30.05.2003 Sunil Kumar left for Abohar where the house of his in-laws, is situated, after receiving a call from Taruna. Sunil Kumar, stayed in Room No.108, in Hotel Glorgio at Abohar. On 03.06.2003 Sunil told his parents that he had met his wife Taruna and in-laws. Sunil Kumar further told that Taruna had fixed his meeting with her parents and they would send her with him. He also told his parents that he had booked a return ticket for 5.6.2003. The complainant Crl.Misc. No.M- 1631 of 2010 --3-- further alleged that he had talked to his son on the afternoon of 5.6.2003, who told him that he had been called by his in- laws for dinner. The complainant continued making telephone calls to the hotel , where his son stayed. The hotel authorities told the complainant that Sunil Kumar had not come back to the hotel. On 6.6.2003 at about 8/9 AM, the complainant received a telephone call from Abohar Police that Sunil Kumar had died in Civil Hospital, Abohar. On

7.6.2003, after reaching Civil Hospital, Abohar, at about

4.00 AM, he suspected that his son had been murdered by the petitioners and their daughter Taruna.

5. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully.

6. The Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the accused-petitioners did not play any role, in the alleged commission of crime. He has further submitted that Sunil Kumar, who had come to Abohar, had caused injuries on his neck and slashed his hand with a broken bottle, as a result whereof, he committed suicide, but there was no instigation on the part of any of the accused for commission of suicide. He has further submitted that the Punjab Police conducted enquiry and found the petitioners to be innocent and even submitted a cancellation report. He has further submitted that Sagan, Security Guard and Chowkidar, saw Sunil Kumar, while committing suicide. He has further Crl.Misc. No.M- 1631 of 2010 --4-- submitted that, at that time, Taruna, daughter of the petitioners and Chowkidar were only present in the house. He has further submitted that petitioner no.1 tried his level best to save the life of Sunil Kumar and went to the Blood Bank, but, in the meanwhile Sunil Kumar died at 1.15 AM. He has further submitted that even during the course of investigation, the petitioners and other family members cooperated with the investigating agency. He has further submitted that Mohan Lal Choudhary, petitioner no.1, father-in-law of Sunil Kumar, is aged about 69 years, whereas, Ms. Santosh Choudhary, petitioner no.2 is aged about 65 years. He has further submitted that the petitioners have been in custody since 06.01.2010.

7. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents, have submitted that Sunil Kumar did not commit suicide. They have further submitted that it was a case of homicidal death, as the incised wounds on the anterior aspect of neck in its middle, and on the lower part of the neck of Sunil Kumar were found at the time of his post mortem examination. They have further submitted that the injuries on the wrist and palm of the deceased were not found, at the time of his medical examination, but the same were later on fabricated, in whatever the small space on the form, available. They have further submitted that the presence of Sunil Kumar at Abohar on the date of Crl.Misc. No.M- 1631 of 2010 --5-- occurrence was not disputed. They have further submitted that he had been called by the petitioners, his father-in-law and mother-in-law, for dinner to their house and, as such, the question of scaling the wall of their house by him, did not at all arise. They have further submitted that the stomach of Sunil Kumar was empty, at the time of post-mortem, which clearly showed that he was invited for dinner and had not taken the same(dinner) by that time. They have further submitted that petitioner no.1 is having a great political clout and that was why the local police was pressurized and the cancellation report was submitted. They have further submitted that the allegations, being serious in nature, the petitioners are not entitled to bail.

8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which the bail, should be granted to the accused-petitioners, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Sunil Kumar,(now deceased), husband of Taruna, daughter of the petitioners had been called to Abohar. Sunil Kumar (since deceased) stayed in the hotel. He had been invited for dinner by the petitioners to their house on the night of 5.6.2003. When Sunil Kumar in injured condition was found in the house of the petitioners, he was removed to the hospital. He died on

6.6.2003 and post-mortem on his dead body was conducted Crl.Misc. No.M- 1631 of 2010 --6-- on 7.6.2003. As per the post mortem report the following injuries were noticed:- “(1). An incised wound of size 6.0 x 2.0 cm on the front of neck in its middle. On dissection underlying tissue is congested, trachea is cut across and trachea is full of blood. The injury is shallow towards left side. Deeper in its middle part, running slightly downwards tailing towards right side. (2) An incised wound about 5 cm x 1.5 cm about .5 cm below injury no.(1) transversely placed. On dissection underlying tissue is congested and injury is muscle deep. (3) An incised wound of size 6.0 x 1.0 cm obliquely placed in the lower part of the neck. Left side of the injury starting from just near the injury no.2 running downwards towards right side, 2.5 cm below injury no.2 in its right side, tailing right side. On dissection underlying tissue is congested and injury is muscle deep. (4) An incised wound of size 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm on the palmer surface of right wrist joint oblique and skin deep. (5) An incised wound of size 0.5 cm x 0.2 cm on the thinner eminence of right palm, skin deep. (6) A skin deep linear incised wound of size 0.6 cm x 0.1 cm on the inner aspect of right hand palm about 2.5 cm, below the little finger.” 8-A. In his MLR, when he was injured, only Crl.Misc. No.M- 1631 of 2010 --7-- injuries no.1 to 3 aforesaid were found in the neck area. Injuries no. 4 to 6 on the right wrist/palm were conspicuous by their absence. Injuries no.4 to 6 were squeezed in later on, whatever space was available on the printed form. In the same direction, an attempt was apparently made by making a mention of six injuries in the post mortem report. Thus, an attempt was allegedly made, right from the very beginning, to fabricate the medical record. His stomach was empty. It means that he had friendly entry to the house of the petitioners. Originally the Punjab Police was not ready to take any action. The Punjab Police did not investigate the matter, in a proper manner, and when the cancellation report was submitted, the father of the deceased filed the aforesaid writ petition, in which the order was passed by this Court, directing the Magistrate to exercise power under Section 173(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for directing the Central Bureau of Investigation to hold proper investigation. It was, thereafter, that the Central Bureau of Investigation, conducted the investigation and found that the petitioners were connected with the commission of offence. The serious injuries on the vital parts of the body of the deceased i.e. neck were allegedly indicative of the homicidal death. The theory set up by the accused that the deceased caused injuries on his person himself, was not believed by the Central Bureau of Investigation. The mere fact that the Punjab Police, after Crl.Misc. No.M- 1631 of 2010 --8-- inquiry, found the petitioners to be innocent and submitted a cancellation report, in the facts and circumstances, referred to above, did not dilute the alleged criminal liability of the petitioners, at this stage. Even the old age of the accused- petitioners, at this stage, cannot be taken into consideration for their release on bail, in such a serious case. The accused- petitioners have only been in custody since 06.01.2010. The custody period of the petitioners is very less. Keeping in view the seriousness of allegations; heinous and grave nature of the offence; the attending circumstances, in which the alleged offence was committed; and the factum that the possibility of , tampering with the evidence, or influencing the witnesses, in case, released on bail, on account of alleged political clout of petitioner no.1, could not be ruled out, no ground, whatsoever, is made out, for the acceptance of Criminal Misc. No. M- 1631 of 2010, and the same deserves to be dismissed.

9. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M- 1631 of 2010, is dismissed.

10. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. February 18, 2010 dinesh ( Sham Sunder ) Judge