(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-6912 of 2010 v. State of Punjab & Anr.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-6912 of 2010 filed by Darshan Singh son of Kahla Singh and Dalip Kaur wife of Darshan Singh, who are the father in law and mother in law respectively of the deceased Manpreet Kaur and Criminal Misc. No.M-7239 of 2010 filed by Manjit Singh son of Darshan Singh who is the brother in law (husband’s elder brother) of Manpreet Kaur. The petitioners in the respective petitions seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 14.8.2006 for the offences under Section Cr. Misc. Nos.M-6912 of 2010 etc. [2] 304-B and 34 Indian Penal Code. The FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been registered on the statement of Mann Singh, who is an uncle (father’s brother) of the deceased Manpreet Kaur . It is stated by Man Singh-complainant that the marriage of his niece Manpreet Kaur (deceased) was solemnized with Karamjit Singh in November 2003. The complainant had given dowry as per his capacity. About Rs.1.50 Lacs was spent. After some time of the marriage of Manpreet Kaur with Karamjit Singh; her father-in-law Darshan Singh, mother-in-law Dalip Kaur (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-6912 of 2010) and Manjit Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-7239 of 2010) son of Darshan Singh (husband’s elder brother of Manpreet Kaur) started harassing the niece of the complainant. The brother of the complainant, namely, Tek Singh (father of Manpreet Kaur) had died in a motor vehicular accident about 12/13 years earlier to the FIR, which FIR was registered on

14.8.2006. In the claim petition that was filed for seeking compensation on account of the death of Tek Singh, an amount of Rs.6 Lacs had been received as compensation. This amount was given to Swaran Kaur wife of Tek Singh and his three children in equal shares. Some amount out of the said amount was spent on Manpreet Kaur at the time of her marriage. Rest of the amount was deposited in her account. After marriage the nephew son-in-law of the complainant namely Karamjit Singh started harassing Manpreet Kaur asking her to bring more dowry. On 9.8.2006, at the time of `Rakhri' Karamjit Singh gave a beating to his wife Manpreet Kaur and demanded money. Manpreet Kaur withdrew Rs.4,000/- from her account and handed over the same to Karamjit Singh. However, he demanded more Cr. Misc. Nos.M-6912 of 2010 etc. [3] money. On 13.8.2006 at about 9.30 p.m., the complainant received a telephone call that his niece Manpreet Kaur was admitted in Civil Hospital Malerkotla due to burn injuries. The complainant along with Sarpanch Jasmail Singh went to the Civil Hospital, Malerkotla to see his niece where he came to know that she has been referred to Dayanand Medical College (DMC) Hospital, Ludhiana. The complainant along with Sarpanch reached DMC Hospital, Ludhiana where she was admitted due to burns. At about

3.30 a.m. on 14.8.2006 she died. Karamjit Singh, the nephew son-in-law of the complainant was also admitted in DMC Hospital, Ludhiana due to burns. It is submitted that the niece of the complainant had been murdered by her father-in-law Darshan Singh, mother-in-law Dalip Kaur, Karamjit Singh-husband and Manjit Singh (husband’s elder brother) due to demand of dowry. The petitioners Darshan Singh, Dalip Kaur and Manjit Singh were not sent up for trial and were kept in column No.2 of the final report (challan) filed by the police. During the course of trial the learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur vide order dated 13.2.2010 (Annexure-P.2) summoned the petitioners in the two petitions as additional accused in terms of Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C. – for short). The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the statement of Mann Singh and his cross-examination was also recorded partly. The petitioners by way of a separate petition have assailed the order dated 13.2.2010 (Annexure-P.2) whereby they have been summoned as additional accused. The case involves death of a girl in a matrimonial home within Cr. Misc. Nos.M-6912 of 2010 etc. [4] about three years of her marriage. Manpreet Kaur had died due to burn injuries otherwise than in normal circumstances. However, the petitioners were not sent-up for trial as they were found not liable during the course of investigation. Therefore, the prosecution admittedly does not require their custody for the purposes of investigation. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that Karamjit Singh was granted anticipatory bail and, therefore, the petitioners in both the petitions are also entitled to the concession of bail. A perusal of the order granting anticipatory bail to Karamjit Singh shows that it was passed after it was shown that he had suffered burn injuries and had been burnt quite badly. He had it was submitted tried to save Manpreet Kaur on account of which he received burn injuries. The petitioners have, however, been summoned as additional accused in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C. The learned Additional Sessions Judge recorded the examination in chief (Annexure-P.4) and cross-examination (Annexure-P.5) partly of the complainant Mann Singh. After considering the said statement it was observed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge in his order dated

13.2.2010 (Annexure-P.2) that from the statement of Mann Singh at the said stage it was apparently proved that along with Karamjit Singh who was already facing trial, the petitioners also are shown to be prima facie involved. Keeping in view the nature of allegations the present is not a case for the grant of pre arrest bail, the remedy in respect of which is somewhat extraordinary in nature. However, keeping in view the fact that Karamjit Singh has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, it would be just and expedient that the petitioners during the hearing of their application for Cr. Misc. Nos.M-6912 of 2010 etc. [5] regular bail are granted interim bail. Accordingly in case the petitioners appear before the learned trial Court on the next date of hearing and file an application for regular bail, they shall be admitted to interim bail and their application for regular bail shall be considered thereafter and till such application is considered they shall continue to be on interim bail which shall be granted to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the case before the trial Court is fixed for tomorrow i.e. 13.3.2010 and, therefore, a copy of this order be given to him under the signatures of Special Secretary of this Bench. Copy of this order be given to the learned counsel for the petitioners attested under the signatures of the Special Secretary of this Bench. It is made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the case for bail and trial on the basis of evidence and material as adduced before it and uninfluenced by any observations made herein. accordingly. The criminal miscellaneous petitions stand disposed of March 12, 2010. *hsp* (S.S. Saron) Judge