High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Santosh vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Santosh vs State Of Haryana on 18 March, 2009
       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH




                               Criminal Misc M-32775 of 2008

                               Date of decision: 18.3.2009


Santosh                                                   ...Petitioner

                         Versus

State of Haryana                                          ...Respondent


Present:    Mr Sanjay Vashisht, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr AS Ghangas, DAG Haryana.


S.S.SARON, J.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against her

for the offences under Sections 302/201/34 IPC at PS Civil Lines, Bhiwani.

The FIR has been registered on the statement of Sudhir Rathi,

who stated that on 28.7.2008 at about 1 p.m., he was going ahead of the ESI

Dispensary on the road of Mohta factory, Sector 21, Bhiwani when he saw a

dead body of a young boy lying on the road side of the road in the grass.

Deep injuries had been inflicted on the head and forehead of the unknown

dead body and blood had oozed out. The clothes and sandals were blood

stained. On making inquiries, the dead body could not be identified. It

appears that some unknown person had left the unknown dead body after

causing injuries. On the basis of the said information, the Police conducted

the investigation and during investigation, the dead body was identified to

be that of Ombir. Sushila wife of Satish and daughter of the petitioner, it

was found, had an affair with said Ombir (deceased). In the investigation,
Cr Misc M-32775 of 2008 2

Sushila wife of Satish, the petitioner, her son – Ram Niwas and grandson of

the petitioner namely Sanjiv son of Ram Niwas were held to be involved in

the murder. The statement of said Sushila who is also a co-accused, was

recorded on 1.8.2008 (P1). Sushila in her statement before the Police stated

that after the death of her earlier husband namely Parshottam, her father –

Hawa Singh had constructed a house in a plot at Bhiwani. Sushila was

living with her children and father in the said house. During her stay, she

developed illicit relations with her neighbour’s son namely Ombir son of

Rajinder. This was not liked by both the families. On 15.1.2008, she was

married second time to her husband’s younger brother (Dewar) namely

Satish and she started living with her children with Satish at village Baas

Badhshahpur. However, for the last one month, Ombir had started meeting

and visiting her at her house. She had refused to meet him and had also told

him not to spoil her settled family but he did not understand. This matter

came to the knowledge of her mother (petitioner) and brother – Ram Niwas.

The brother of Sushila namely Ram Niwas serves in the Army. On

27.7.2008, Ram Niwas came to the house of Sushila and inquired about the

visit of Ombir. Sushila told him everything and then Ram Niwas brought

Sushila at their house in Paluwaas where she was given a beating by her

mother (petitioner) – Santosh and Ram Niwas. A plan was made that Ombir

would be taught a lesson by calling him at night. As per the plan on

27.7.2008, during night at 8 and 10 through mobile number of Sushila, a

call was made on the mobile of Ombir on the pretext that family members

had gone to Haridwar and he should come and meet Sushila at village

Paluwaas. The father, brother’s wife (Bhabhi) and children of Sushila went

to sleep on the roof. As per the plan, Santosh (petitioner), Ram Niwas and

nephew of Sushila namely Sanjiv hid themselves in a Kotha of a courtyard.
Cr Misc M-32775 of 2008 3

At about 10 during night, Ombir came to meet Sushila. By switching on the

TV, Sushila and Ombir lied on a cot by bolting the courtyard gate from

inside. While they were in the room, Ram Niwas, brother of Sushila came

from the Kotha with a piece of iron rod and mother (petitioner) and nephew

of Sushila namely Sanjiv started beating Ombir with a Danda. Ombir tried

to run towards the gate by getting himself freed but Ram Niwas gave a

heavy pipe blow on his head and he fell on the floor. While he was lying,

Santosh (petitioner) picked up a knife lying on the TV and hit the same on

the head and forehead of Ombir. Due to this, Ombir became unconscious.

Thereafter, Santosh – petitioner took out 3-4 tablets of Sulphos from a

packet and poured the same on the mouth and face of Ombir after mixing it

in water. During night at about 2-3, he was taken on the rear seat of Maruti

Car by Sushila, her nephew – Sanjiv and brother – Ram Niwas and the dead

body of Ombir was thrown in the big grass in the Industrial Area, Bhiwani

on the roadside near ESI hospital. Thereafter Sushila and her mother

(petitioner) cleaned the floor and clothes with soap and water. On

28.7.2008 in the morning at 8 a.m., Sushila went back to her matrimonial

home at Baas. On 1.8.2008, she had appeared before the Police and stated

that she could get the places demarcated where in the area of courtyard of

her home Ombir was killed and the place where he was thrown.

The case, therefore, of the prosecution is based on the

statement of co-accused of the petitioner namely Sushila who is none other

than the daughter of the petitioner. The statement of a co-accused as is well

known by itself cannot be treated as a substantive piece of evidence and it

has been held to be safe to rely on other corroborative evidence as well. In

any case, this aspect need not be gone into at this stage while considering

the application for the grant of regular bail and this would more
Cr Misc M-32775 of 2008 4

appropriately be gone into by the trial Court after evidence has been led. It

may, however, be noticed that the petitioner is a lady and she is in custody

since 3.8.2008. The question whether she was indeed involved in the

occurrence would depend on the nature of evidence that is led in the case.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it

would be just and expedient that she is admitted to bail.

Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner, on her

furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of CJM Bhiwani,

shall be admitted to bail.

18.3.2009                                           ( S.S.SARON )
ASR                                                      Judge