Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1601 (PNJ)

Saravjit Singh v. State of Haryana

2009-09-09

HARBANS LAL

body2009
JUDGMENT HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Saravjit Singh under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking his regular bail in case FIR No.94 dated 11.7.2008 registered under Section 304-B/34 of IPC at Police Station Mullana, District Ambala. The facts in brief are that Sampooran Singh made statement before the police in the terms that the marriage of Gurpreet Kaur daughter of his brother Kirpal Singh was solemnised with Saravjit Singh (referring to the petitioner) on 12.4.2006. In the marriage, they gave dowry as per their capacity. After few days of the marriage, Sarvjit Singh and his parents started harassing his niece Gurpreet Kaur for having brought lesser dowry and they used to say that her father has given small Santro Car in the marriage. And that since their son is living in Italy, therefore, a big car should have been given. This was disclosed to them by Gurpreet Kaur. His brother Subedar Kirpal Singh being on duty, he and Jasbir Kaur, mother of Gurpreet Kaur went to Tamnoli and tried to persuade the accused that they are poor people and they have left no deficiency in giving dowry. On this Saravjit Singh and his father Harbhajan Singh and mother Swaran Kaur said that if they give Ford Fiesta Car to them, only then they will allow to settle their daughter. Then they tried to make them to understand the things and came back. The accused behaved well for a few days and, thereafter, Saravjit left for Italy. Now about 15-20 days ago Saravjit came back from Italy to his house. About 2-3 days back, Gurpreet Kaur told her mother on telephone that Saravjit Singh, her mother-in-law Swaran Kaur and father-in-law Harbhajan Singh are again taunting her to bring Ford Fiesta Car and was unnecessarily harassing her. On this, they told Gurpreet Kaur that Subedar Kirpal Singh will come on leave, then they will come and try to make them understand the things. Today (referring to 11.7.2008) at about 6:30 P.M in the evening, they received an information on the telephone that Gurpreet Kaur has consumed some poisonous substance and has expired in Monga Hospital. On this, he along with a number of people from his village reached the said hospital and found that his niece Gurpreet Kaur was lying dead in Monga Hospital, Mahesh Nagar. On this, he along with a number of people from his village reached the said hospital and found that his niece Gurpreet Kaur was lying dead in Monga Hospital, Mahesh Nagar. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with great eloquence that as a matter of fact, the deceased Gurpreet Kaur was unable to bear a child and that being so, she used to remain under depression and for that reason, she committed suicide. He further puts that Sampooran Singh complainant when examined as PW6 in the trial Court, he stated in his cross-examination that “I do not know till date if she was having medical problem in conceiving. I do not know if her right flopian tube was blocked. I also do not know if doctors had opined that she is not in a position to bear a child in a natural process.” If the deceased had not been facing this problem, this witness would have not given reply to these material questions in an evasive manner. The next argument raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the parents of the petitioner, who were similarly situated to the petitioner have already been admitted to bail and thus, by applying the rule of parity, he may also be admitted to bail. To controvert these submissions, the learned State Counsel being assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant pressed into service that as a matter of fact, the petitioner when came to India a few days prior to this occurrence instigated his parents to put forth the demand for Fiesta Car and it is only on the basis of his instigation, his parents too started harassing the deceased who being left with no alternative put an end to her life. A glance through the FIR would reveal that it does not contain the allegations that the petitioner had instigated his parents. Faced with this situation, the learned State Counsel stated that there are no such allegations. This case has been registered at the instance of paternal uncle of the deceased. A glance through the FIR would reveal that it does not contain the allegations that the petitioner had instigated his parents. Faced with this situation, the learned State Counsel stated that there are no such allegations. This case has been registered at the instance of paternal uncle of the deceased. Sampooran Singh complainant in his testimony before the Court as PW6 deposed that “Gurpreet Kaur had made a telephonic call to her mother and she had stated that the accused persons were not satisfied with the dowry articles and they have been continuously harassing her for bringing less dowry. Gurpreet Kaur again made a telephonic call to her mother and stated that both the accused were taunting her and harassing her for bringing less dowry.” There is nothing on the record to show that earlier to this, any complaint was made to the police or other authorities with regards to the alleged harassment by the accused to the deceased. It is in the cross-examination of Sampooran Singh that “Saravjit Singh went to Italy after two months of the marriage. It is correct that Saravjit Singh came to India in December, 2006. It is correct that during this period, he came to us also and went back to Italy on 8.2.2007. It is correct that Saravjit Singh again came to India on 12.1.2008. It is correct that he went back to Italy on 16.5.2008 after staying in India for five months.” This evidence brings out that the petitioner had visited this country even at earlier occasions. The learned State Counsel has not drawn attention towards any complaint or any document showing that when the petitioner visited this country on earlier occasions had also impelled the deceased to fetch Ford Fiesta Car from her parents. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner. As would be apparent from the FIR, there are general allegations against the accused. The trial is not likely to be concluded within a measurable distance of time. As such, by applying the rule of parity, the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. However, it is clarified that the above observations in no manner shall be construed to mean an expression of opinion on merits of the case.