Crl.Misc.No.M-34368 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
Crl.Misc.No.M-34368 of 2008
Date of Decision: 24.2.2009
Darshan Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab ....Respondent
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
****
Present : Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr.Advocate with Ms.Meenakshi Dogra,Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajesh Bhardwaj, Addl.A.G. Punjab.
Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
….
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
Prayer in this petition, filed under Section 439 of the Code of
Criminal procedure is for grant of regular bail, in case FIR No.87 dated
12.4.2008, registered under Sections 304-B/406 IPC, at Police Station Sadar
Sunam, Distt. Sangrur.
Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s wife
committed suicide on 8.4.2008. In the inquest proceedings, initiated under
Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, statements of the
deceased’s father, mother and a brother were recorded but they did not
allege any foul play. The deceased was cremated on 9.4.2008 and her last
rites were performed at Kiratpur Sahib in the presence of the petitioner.
However, on 12.4.2008, the present FIR came to be lodged by a brother,
who had not made any statement before the police. It is further submitted
Crl.Misc.No.M-34368 of 2008 2
that the allegations with respect to demand of dowry etc., are false and as
the petitioner has been behind bars since 26.4.2008, his further incarceration
is unwarranted.
Counsel for the State of Punjab, as also counsel for the
complainant submit that the petitioner’s wife died within two years of their
marriage. As per the report of the chemical analyst, aluminium sulphos was
found in her viscera. The petitioner was dissatisfied with the dowry and the
failure of his wife and his in-laws to accede to his demand for dowry. He,
therefore, forcibly administered insecticide to his wife, leading to her death.
It is prayed that in view of the gravity of the offence, the prayer for bail be
rejected.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
FIR.
As noticed herein above, during proceedings under Section 174
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, neither the father, the mother nor a
brother of deceased raised any apprehension of any foul play. In fact, the
petitioner, participated in the cremation and ceremonies relating to
immersion of ashes of his wife, at Kiratpur Sahib. The FIR was
subsequently lodged by another brother, who had not made any statement in
proceedings under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The
allegations of administering insecticide are conspicuous by their absence.
Admittedly, the prosecution is in progress and the prosecution has cited 25
witnesses. The prosecution, however, has only examined two witnesses and
the trial, therefore, is likely to be delayed.
Without expressing any further opinion, as to the merits of the
present controversy, bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial
Crl.Misc.No.M-34368 of 2008 3
Magistrate/Illaqa Magistrate, Sangrur.
Nothing stated herein shall be construed to be an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case.
24.2.2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE