Crl. Misc. No. M-838 of 2010 v. State of Punjab

Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr. Parminder Singh-I, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek regular bail in a case registered against them on 20.7.2009 for the offence under Section 304-B IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Bela Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that they were seven brothers and all were living together. His younger brother Gurtej Singh was serving in Army. The marriage of Gurtej Singh’s daughter namely Gagandeep Kaur was solemnized with Paramjit Singh on 20.2.2009. Gurtej Singh, brother of the complainant had given sufficient dowry to his daughter. Gagandeep Kaur’s husband namely Paramjit Singh was also serving in the Army. Around one and a half months earlier to the occurrence, Paramjit Singh Crl. Misc. No. M-838 of 2010 [2] came on leave for one month and Gagandeep Kaur had also gone to village Chhajli. It is alleged that Paramjit Singh and his grand father-in-law Raghbir Singh and his father Gurmeet Singh had a quarrel with Gagandeep Kaur over the issue of bringing inadequate dowry. They broke the dressing mirror given to Gagandeep Kaur. When the complainant came to know about this, then he along with his brother Shamsher Singh went to village Chhajli to talk to the in-laws of Gagandeep Kaur. It is alleged that Raghbir Singh, grand father-in-law told them that dowry articles were of inferior quality and an amount of `50,000/- be given for buying goods. The complainant after arranging a sum of `50,000/- gave it to the grand father-in-law. Paramjit Singh, husband of Gagandeep Kaur after completing his leave had gone back on duty. About 7 days earlier to the occurrence, the complainant had gone to meet his niece Gagandeep Kaur and she told him that her in-laws including grand father-in-law Raghbir Singh, grand mother-in-law Karnail Kaur, father-in-law Gurmeet Singh (petitioner No.1), mother-in-law Kulwant Kaur (petitioner No.2), sister-in-law Chhinder Kaur and brother-in-law Raj Singh harassed her every day in connection with demand for dowry. She was asked to bring more dowry. On 19.7.2009 at around 8.00 p.m. the complainant came to know that Gagandeep Kaur had taken some poisonous substance after getting fed up from continuous harassment of her in-laws. The complainant along with his brother Shamsher Singh went to Raghbir Singh’s house at village Chhajli and they saw that Gagandeep Kaur was lying outside on the bed in an Crl. Misc. No. M-838 of 2010 [3] unconscious state. After seeing them, her in-laws escaped from there on the plea of calling a doctor. Then the complainant along with his brother took his niece Gagandeep Kaur for treatment to Govt. Hospital, Sunam. When they were on the way to Sunam at around 10.00 p.m., Gagandeep Kaur died. The death of Gagandeep Kaur had taken place by consuming some poisonous substance after getting fed up from continuous harassment at the hands of her in-laws. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners has contended that the primary allegations in the FIR are against Raghbir Singh, grand father-in-law of the deceased Gagandeep Kaur who is alleged to have demanded `50,000/- and is said to have been given the same. It is submitted that this Court vide order dated 23.12.2009 (Annexure P1) has granted bail to the grand mother-in-law and grand father-in-law of the deceased Gagandeep Kaur as they were stated to be staying separate from the house of the deceased. Besides, they had been in custody since

22.7.2009. The petitioners, it is stated, are on better footing as there is no allegation of demand by them nor is anything said to be given to them. Therefore, the petitioners are also entitled to the concession of bail. In response, learned State counsel and the counsel for the complainant have opposed the application. It is contended that the petitioners are not entitled for grant of bail as there are allegations that Gagandeep Kaur died in her matrimonial home under unnatural circumstances and in connection with demand for dowry. Crl. Misc. No. M-838 of 2010 [4] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the death of Gagandeep Kuar (deceased) had occurred within 7 years of her marriage which was solemnized on 20.2.2009 and the incident had occurred on 20.7.2009. Raghbir Singh, grand father-in-law of the deceased is alleged to have informed the complainant and his brother Shamsher Singh that the dowry articles given to them were of inferior quality and he raised a demand for a sum of `50,000/-. After arranging the amount, the grand father-in-law was paid `50,000/-. No amount is said to have been demanded or paid to be petitioners. The husband of the complainant is not being proceeded against as he was serving in the Army and not at home at the time of the incident. The petitioners are in custody since 22.7.2009. The prosecution has cited 28 witnesses and till date only one witness has been examined in chief. This Court vide order dated 14.1.2010 had asked for the status report of the case. Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ad hoc), Fast Track Court, Sangrur has informed that on 14.1.2010 PWs Dr. Anju Singla and Dr. Rajiv Jindal were present, but on the request of learned Additional P.P. for State, their examination was deferred as he stated that he would examine the witnesses after the examination of the complainant and the eye witnesses first. The Examination-in-chief of PW Bela Singh was recorded on

16.2.2010 but his cross-examination was deferred as Court time was over. On 2.3.2010, the accused were not produced in the Court by the Jail authorities for want of security. So, the accused were ordered to be summoned Crl. Misc. No. M-838 of 2010 [5] through production warrant for 16.3.2010. On the said date PW Bela Singh had not turned up despite the fact that he was bound down. So, he along with other witnesses was ordered to be served for 7.4.2010. The trial in the case is likely to take time. It is to be ascertained and shown that soon before the death of Gagandeep Kaur she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the petitioners in connection with demand for dowry so as to make out an offence under Section 304-B IPC. This aspect is to be considered by the trial Court after evidence has been led. In the circumstances, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur shall be admitted to bail. September 28, 2010 (S.S. SARON) JUDGE