High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Geeta Rani And Another vs State Of Punjab on 1 May, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Geeta Rani And Another vs State Of Punjab on 1 May, 2009
           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                                    ......


                     Criminal Misc. No.M-719 of 2009
                                    .....

                                                    Date of decision:31.3.2009


                           Geeta Rani and another
                                                                .....Petitioners
                                      v.

                               State of Punjab
                                                               .....Respondent
                                     ....


Present:     Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

             Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab
             for the respondent-State.

             Mr. P.S. Brar, Advocate for the complainant.
                                    .....

S.S. Saron, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The petitioners, who are the mother-in-law and wife

respectively of Kuldeep Singh, seek regular bail.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of Mahender

Singh, the father of Kuldeep Singh (deceased). It is alleged that Kuldeep

Singh his son was married 1½ years earlier to Meenu (petitioner No.2). His

son used to live with his in-laws and occasionally visit him. On 8.6.2007,

his son came with his wife and stayed with him. Kuldeep Singh demanded

his share in the house which was sold by the complainant. Because of this

reason, there had been arguments between them. On 9.6.2007, at around

3.00 p.m. Kuldeep Singh, the son of the complainant came to him and asked

for his share. The complainant gave Rs.30,000/- as his share and he took

that money with him and went to his in-laws. On 9.6.2007 at 7.00 p.m., the
Cr. Misc. No.M-719/2009
[2]

complainant came to know that his son was lying unconscious at Bohana

Chowk near storm water drain (Same Nala). Then the complainant along

with Baldev Singh and Kewal Singh went to the storm water drain where

Kuldeep Singh was lying in the open space on the road approaching

Hargobind Nagar. He was taken to Civil Hospital, Moga where he was

declared dead. On the said day, Kuldeep Singh had come from the house of

his in-laws on rickshaw of Darshan Singh. On 10.6.2007, the complainant

gave a statement to ASI Joginder Singh and proceedings under Section 174

Cr.P.C. were completed by the Police. It is thereafter that inquiry was made

by the complainant and he was convinced that his son Kuldeep Singh had

been killed by his in-laws i.e. the petitioners and also Prem Kumar, the

father-in-law and Veerpal Kumar alias Gora, the brother-in-law of Kuldeep

Singh. All of them had conspired and killed his son by giving him poison.

It may be noticed that the occurrence is of 9.6.2007 and the FIR

has been registered on 26.8.2008 i.e. after more than one year of the

occurrence. The Chemical Examiner’s report was received on 26.7.2007

according to which the poison was detected in the viscera. Kuldeep Singh

is said to have made an oral dying declaration to the rickshaw puller

Darshan Singh son of Kulwant Singh that he had been poisoned by his in-

laws. The said statement has also been recorded on 26.8.2008 i.e. after

more than one year of the occurrence. The question whether the petitioners

are indeed involved in committing the murder of Kuldeep Singh (deceased)

is to be gone into and considered by the trial Court after evidence has been

led. Both the petitioners are ladies and have been in custody since

26.8.2008. In the trial only the evidence of doctor has been recorded.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that warrants
Cr. Misc. No.M-719/2009
[3]

of arrest have been issued for procuring the presence of other witnesses as

despite being summoned, they are not appearing in the trial. Therefore, the

trial in the case may be delayed further.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and the fact that

the FIR has been registered after more than one year of the occurrence, it

would be just and expedient that the petitioners are granted the concession

of bail.

Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and

the petitioners on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the

satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Moga shall be admitted to

bail.

Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of

opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider

the case on the basis of evidence and material produced before it.

March 31, 2009. (S.S. Saron)
Judge
*hsp*