SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Inder Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 25 July, 2014

Punjab-Haryana High Court Inder Singh & Anr vs State Of Haryana on 25 July, 2014

CRM No. M-25010 of 2014 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CRM No. M-25010 of 2014

Date of Decision:-25.7.2014

Inder Singh & Anr.

…Petitioners

Versus

State of Haryana

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

Present: Mr.V.K.Jindal, Senior Advocate with Ms.Garima Jindal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)

Tersely, the facts & material, which need a necessary mention

for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition, for the grant of

concession of anticipatory bail filed by the petitioners, in a case of dowry

death and emanating from the record, inter-alia, are that the marriage of

Kiran (since deceased), daughter of complainant Bijender Khatri s/o Om

Parkash (for brevity “the complainant”), was solemnized with Amit, son of

Inder Singh (petitioner No.1) on 25.2.2013, according to Hindu rites &

ceremonies. The complainant (PW1), in his statement (Annexure P1), has

specifically stated that he had performed the descent marriage by spending

huge amount beyond his capacity and had given sufficient dowry to the

accused. Just ten days after the marriage of his daughter, accused Amit

(husband), Inder Singh (petitioner No.1) (father-in-law), Roshni (mother-in-

law), Sumit brother-in-law (Jeth) and Sushma (petitioner No.2), sister-in- Arvind Kumar Sharma

2014.07.28 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM No. M-25010 of 2014 2

law (Jethani), started harassing her on account of bringing insufficient

dowry. They gave beatings to Kiran and turned her out of the matrimonial

home. The matter was, however, pacified and she was sent to her

matrimonial home by the complainant. Some days thereafter, the accused

pressurized her either to bring a sum of ` 50 lacs from her parents or to

purchase a plot in Delhi in their names. She showed her inability to fulfill

their illegal demand of ` 50 lacs on account of paucity of funds with her

father. The accused gave beatings and again turned her out of the

matrimonial home. She narrated the entire tale of her woe to her father

(complainant) and expressed apprehension that the accused would endanger

her life. Subsequently, about 25 days prior to the instant occurrence, the

complainant persuaded his daughter to go to her matrimonial home on the

assurance of the accused to keep her nicely, but in vain.

2. Likewise, the case of the prosecution further proceeds that on

3.1.2014, Kiran (deceased) had telephonically informed the complainant

about the maltreatment and mis-behaviour of the accused towards her. In the

morning of 5.2.2014 at about 8 A.M., she again made a call, talked and

informed her mother that petitioners and their other co-accused were

harassing, torturing and extending beatings to her on account of non-

fulfillment of their illegal demand of ` 50 lacs to or purchase a plot in

Delhi. On the same night at about 8.30 P.M., petitioner Inder Singh has

telephonically informed the complainant that his daughter had sustained

burn injuries and she was admitted in the hospital. As soon as, the

complainant reached there, he found his daughter dead. According to the

complainant that his daughter Kiran had been set ablaze and murdered by

the accused.

Arvind Kumar Sharma

2014.07.28 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM No. M-25010 of 2014 3

3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of

events in detail in the FIR, in all, the prosecution claimed that the death of

Kiran was caused by burns or bodily injuries and she died an unnatural

death within about one year of her marriage and soon before her death, she

was subjected to cruelty and harassment by the accused in connection with

and on account of demand of dowry. In the background of these allegations

and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was

registered against the petitioners and their other co-accused, vide FIR No.28

dated 6.2.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable

u/ss 304-B, 498-A, 120-B and 302 IPC by the police of Police Station

Kundli, District Sonepat, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

4. Having exercised their right of bail and remained unsuccessful

before Additional Sessions Judge, now the petitioners have preferred the

instant petition for the grant of concession of pre-arrest bail in the indicated

criminal case in this Court.

5. After hearing the learned senior counsel for the petitioners,

going through the record with his valuable help and after deep consideration

over the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in

this context.

6. Ex-facie, the arguments of learned senior counsel that the

petitioners were found innocent by the police and since they were

summoned to face the trial, in pursuance of application u/s 319 Cr.PC as

additional accused by the trial Court, so, they are entitled to the benefit of

anticipatory bail, are not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.

7. As is evident from the record that names of petitioners were

specifically mentioned in the FIR (initial version). Very direct and serious Arvind Kumar Sharma

2014.07.28 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM No. M-25010 of 2014 4

allegations of, repeatedly beatings, demand of ` 50 lacs or plot in Delhi and

cruelty in connection with and on account of demand of dowry are assigned

to the petitioners in the FIR in the manner described here-in-above.

8. Sequelly, the mere fact that petitioner No.1, who is an official

of Delhi Police, has managed and local police has exonerated the

petitioners, for the reasons best known to it, ipso facto, is not a ground,

muchless cogent, to grant them the concession of pre-arrest bail in a heinous

offence of dowry death. Otherwise also, petitioner No.1 was stated to have

been exonerated on the plea of alibi. To me, the police cannot be assigned

the duty to appreciate the evidence, which is the function of the Court to

decide the plea of alibi of petitioner No.1. Be that as it may, otherwise also,

his absence at the relevant time of actual death of Kiran is immaterial for the

purpose of offence of dowry death.

9. Moreover, considering the substantive evidence and the

statement (Annexure P1) of complainant (PW1), on oath, the trial Court has

examined the matter in the right perspective and came to the definite

conclusion that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners to try

them along with their other main co-accused for the pointed offences, by

way of summoning order dated 11.7.2014 (Annexure P2), which, in

substance, is as under:-

“In the complaint, which was lodged by the father of the deceased i.e. complainant it was alleged that shortly after the marriage of the deceased, specific allegations were leveled to the effect that the father in law, mother in law, Jeth, Jethani and husband of his daughter had started harassing her soon after her marriage on account of bringing insufficient dowry and she was sent back to her parental house on account of non fulfillment of their demand. They had raised a demand of Rs.50.00 lacs for purchasing a plot in their name at Delhi. In his sworn testimony, complainant Bijender reiterated these allegations by specifically deposing that not only the accused already arraigned, but the proposed additional Arvind Kumar Sharma

2014.07.28 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM No. M-25010 of 2014 5

accused had also harassed her daughter and tortured her on account of bringing insufficient dowry and on account of demand of Rs.50.00 lacs or a plot. The daughter of the deceased died within a period of less than one year of her marriage with accused Amit. The allegations make out a prima facie case that she died a dowry death on being subjected to cruelty on account of demand of dowry soon before her death. From the evidence coming on record, it is clear that the proposed accused namely Inder Singh and Sushma can be tried together with the accused already arraigned for the charges for which the co-accused have been facing trial and there is no need at this stage to form any opinion as to the guilt of the proposed accused and to hold that there is a reasonable prospect of the case ending in the conviction of the proposed accused. Though the accused already arraigned have taken a plea of alibi on behalf of proposed additional accused Inder Singh by placing on record certain documents to show that Inder Singh was performing duty in Delhi on the night of incident i.e. 5.2.2014 as he was a Delhi police employee and was not present at the spot, however, in my opinion, such like plea could not be taken by the accused already arraigned. Moreso, what is the effect of these documents can be considered during trial when evidence is led by both the parties. For the purpose of charges under Sections 498A and 304-B of IPC it is not required to be proved that a person accused of commission of such offences was present at the spot at the time of occurrence or not. In these circumstances, in my opinion, the application deserves to be allowed and accordingly the same is allowed and Inder Singh, father in law and Sushma, Jethani of the deceased are ordered to be summoned as additional accused for the purposes of facing trial along with the accused already arraigned for the commission of offences under sections 498A, 304-B read with section 34 of IPC and alternatively under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC.”

10. Meaning thereby, very serious allegations of commission of

indicated offences are assigned to petitioners. Not only that, prima facie,

there is sufficient evidence on record against them. At the same time, the

legal presumption, as contemplated u/s 113-B of The Indian Evidence Act,

1872 is fully attracted to their case. Therefore, to my mind, the petitioners

are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining

circumstances of the case.

11. Above-all, it is now well settled principle of law that

anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. The Arvind Kumar Sharma

2014.07.28 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CRM No. M-25010 of 2014 6

order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal legal

procedure. The order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road

into the statutory normal procedure of trial. Similarly, the Court should not

be unmindful of the difficulties and the public interest likely to be affected

thereby.

12. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the

totality of the facts & circumstances, oozing out from the record, as

discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on

merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial

of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for pre-

arrest bail filed by the petitioners is hereby dismissed as such.

13. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above,

would reflect, on the merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial,

as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the

present petition for anticipatory bail only.

Sd/-

25.7.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge

Arvind Kumar Sharma

2014.07.28 18:13

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Copyright © 2020 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation