Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
201
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6910-2021 (OM)
Date of decision : 12.07.2021
Daljit Singh …..Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana …..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE ALKA SARIN
Present: Mr.Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
Ms. Ambika Sood, Addl. AG Haryana
Mr. Viney Saini, Advocate for the complainant
…
ALKA SARIN, J.
Heard through video conferencing.
This is the second regular bail petition under Section 439 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of bail in FIR No.205
dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure P-1) under Sections 323, 406, 498A, 376,
511, 496, 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 registered at Police Station
Nigdu, District Karnal. The first petition under Section 439 CrPC (CRM-
M-42438-2020) was dismissed as withdrawn on 21.12.2020.
The petitioner is the husband of the complainant. The other
accused persons named in the FIR are the father-in-law, brothers-in-law
and sisters-in-law of the complainant. As per the allegations in the FIR
1 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-07-2021 01:48:06 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -2-
dated 29.10.2020 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner and the complainant were
married on 23.02.2014 as per Sikh rites and ceremonies and there is a five
year old son out of the wedlock. The complainant alleges that her father
spent around rupees twenty five lakhs on the wedding on the asking of the
accused. A Maruti Celerio car, a Splendor motorcycle, gold ornaments,
istridhan was given to the accused. It is alleged that right from the
beginning the accused blamed the complainant for bringing less and
inferior dowry, that they had demanded an Innova car instead of the
Maruti Celerio given, rupees twelve lakhs was demanded for purchasing a
flat in Mohra. After three months the petitioner started beating the
complainant and started remaining in an inebriated state and used to beat
the complainant in a drunken state. When the complainant brought this to
the notice of the other accused they instead started blaming the
complainant. It is alleged that when the state of the petitioner deteriorated
because of his addiction, the in-laws of the complainant got the petitioner
admitted in a drug de-addiction centre for two years. During this period
the brother-in-law (accused no.3) of the complainant started making
advances towards her and wanted to develop illicit relations. Even the
other brother-in-law (accused no.5) made advances towards her and
forced her to have illicit relations with her. When the complainant brought
the acts of her brothers-in-law (accused nos.3 and 5) to the notice of her
sister-in-law (accused no.6) she, instead of counselling the brothers-in-
law, started siding with them and threatened the complainant that she
has illicit relations with them or she would lose her life. The
complainant was harassed and beaten by the accused for about four years.
2 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -3-
It is alleged that the mother-in-law of the complainant died on 22.08.2019
when her parents and relatives had visited her in-laws house and brought
to the notice of the accused the atrocities being committed on the
complainant when the accused had sought forgiveness and assured them
that the complainant would not be harassed in future nor any demand for
dowry would be made nor she would be beaten. On 01.12.2019 when the
complainant was sleeping at night alone in her room her brother-in-law
(accused no.3) forcibly entered her room and laid down next to her while
she was sleeping and started molesting her to attempt committing rape on
her. The complainant made noise and wife of the accused no.3 i.e. her
sister-in-law (accused no.4) came and instead of admonishing her
husband started beating the complainant. The petitioner was not at home
on that day and when he came home in the morning the complainant told
him about the incident of the previous night when all the accused gathered
and locked the complainant in her room and beat her with sticks, kicked
her, boxed her which caused her injuries and her left eye was injured and
she lost her vision. The complainant rang up her home and her mother
came and took her and seeing her condition she was taken to PGI
Chandigarh where her eye was operated upon. The other injuries suffered
by the complainant were also got treated. A panchayat was held at the
house of the accused who abused the complainant and the other persons
who had come and threatened that the complainant should bring Innova
car and rupees twelve lakhs for the plot otherwise she would not be
allowed to enter the house and took the istridhan of the complainant in
their possession and locked the room of the complainant and asked
3 of 7
::: Downloaded on – 13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -4-
everyone to leave otherwise they would be killed. The complainant
returned to her home and has been staying at her parents house since then.
It is also alleged that the petitioner was convicted earlier, which fact was
hidden before the marriage by the accused, and he threatens the
complainant that he has committed murder earlier and will also kill the
complainant.
The counsel for the petitioner has urged that the petitioner has
been falsely implicated in the case. The complainant has levelled false
allegations against the petitioner and his family members many years after
their marriage, the Maruti Celerio car was sold by the father of the
complainant and the motor cycle was sold by the husband and wife after
agreement. He has contended that the FIR was filed after a long delay and
there are no dates given therein about when the complainant was mal-
treated or beaten. There was no injury to the eye of the complainant as
alleged in the FIR and infact she had a pre-existing problem in her left eye
which she got treated in December 2019. He has also contended that after
the withdrawal of the first petition for regular bail the circumstances have
changed as the investigation stands completed and final report under
Section 173 CrPC has been presented in Court.
Learned State counsel has opposed the bail petition and has
relied upon the averments made in the status report dated 02.03.2021 and
the short reply filed by the State. In the status report it is inter-alia averred
that during the course of investigations the statement of the complainant
was recorded and Sections 376/511 IPC were added. An application for
medical examination of the complainant was moved before the Medical
4 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -5-
Officer but the complainant refused to get her medical examination
conducted. The statement of the complainant under Section 164 CrPC was
recorded by the Magistrate. Thereafter, on the basis of the investigations,
no involvement of Jasbir Kaur (accused no.4), Jasbir Singh (accused no.5)
and Manjit Kaur (accused no.6) was found and they were kept in Column
No.2. The petitioner and accused no.3 were arrested on 17.11.2020 while
accused no.2 was arrested on 07.01.2021. On the basis of the disclosure
statement suffered by the petitioner the dowry articles were recovered and
were released to the complainant on superdari. It is also stated that the
Maruti Celerio car was sold by the father of the complainant for
Rs.2,50,000/- while the motorcycle was sold by the complainant and the
petitioner by mutual consent. The challan has been prepared against the
petitioner and accused nos.2 and 3 and has been submitted in Court
though the charges are yet to be framed. The status report also mentions
that in FIR No.54 dated 23.02.2007 under Sections 323, 324, 302 IPC the
petitioner was convicted for life imprisonment vide order dated
15.05.2009 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala which, on
appeal by the petitioner, was modified to one under Section 304(II) IPC
by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2013 and the sentence was reduced
to one already undergone. In the short reply filed by the State the medico
legal case summary of the complainant prepared by the Government
Medical College and Hospital, Sector 32, Chandigarh has been put on
record according to which the complainant had undergone an elective
surgery of the left eye. It is argued that the petitioner is a habitual offender
and has committed serious offences, the charges are yet to be framed and
5 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -6-
several witnesses are to be examined, the petitioner may abscond or
influence the witnesses and, therefore, the petitioner ought not to be
released on bail.
Counsel for the complainant has argued on the same lines as
the State counsel and also submitted that the complainant was badly
beaten by the petitioner and her left eye was also damaged. She was
harassed and subjected to taunts and beatings for not bringing sufficient
dowry and the accused demanded more dowry from her and her parents.
The complainant was sexually harassed by none other than her brothers-
in-law and thus the petitioner be not granted any bail.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
In the present case the last incident reported by the
complainant is of 01/02.12.2019 whereas the FIR was lodged on
29.10.2020. The dowry articles have been recovered and stand returned to
the complainant on superdari. The complainant refused to undergo a
medical examination and as per the hospital she underwent an elective
surgery on 04/05.12.2019. The allegations of sexual harassment and rape
are not against the petitioner. The father of the complainant himself sold
the Maruti Celerio car while the motorcycle was sold by the complainant
and petitioner by choice. No doubt the petitioner stands convicted for an
offence under Section 302(II) IPC and has undergone the sentence qua the
same. However, there is no other case against him after 2007. The
investigations stand completed and no further recoveries are to be made.
In view of the above and without commenting upon the
merits of the case and considering the fact that the trial is likely to take
6 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::
CRM-M-6910-2021 -7-
some time to conclude especially in view of the prevailing conditions on
account of COVID-19 Pandemic and also the fact that the petitioner has
been behind bars since 17.11.2020, no useful purpose would be served by
keeping the petitioner behind the bars any further. This Court, therefore,
deems this to be a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. The
petitioner is directed to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail
bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Illaqa Magistrate/Duty
Magistrate/Trial Court concerned.
However, the Prosecution will always be at liberty to apply
for cancellation of bail in case the petitioner is found to be misusing the
concession of bail in any manner.
It is also made clear that any observation made herein shall
not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
Disposed off.
July 12, 2021 (ALKA SARIN)
parkash JUDGE
NOTE:
Whether speaking/non-speaking: Speaking
Whether reportable: YES/NO
7 of 7
13-07-2021 01:48:07 :::