Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 850 (HP)

SURJIT SINGH v. STATE OF H. P.

2009-10-09

KULDIP SINGH

body2009
JUDGMENT Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral)-This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in FIR No. 52 of 2009 registered on 10.2.2009 at Police Station Sadar, Hamirpur under Sections 498-A, 302 IPC. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. 3. The prosecution case in brief against the petitioner is that on 10.2.2009 at about 2.10 PM a telephonic information was received at Police Station Hamirpur that Surjit Singh had set on fire his wife Kanta Devi by pouring Kerosene oil and she was taken to Referral Hospital Hamirpur for treatment. On this Rapt No. 61 was entered at Police Station Hamirpur and the police official reached Hospital where victim Kanta Devi was under treatement. Opinion of doctor was taken regarding the fitness of victim to make statement, doctor opined that victim is in a position to make statement. Accordingly statement of Kanta Devi was recorded. 4. The further case of the prosecution is that Kanta Devi had married to Surjit Singh in the year 1988 and had given birth to two daughters and one son. The petitioner was serving in police and was on leave those days. On 10.2.2009, in the absence of children at about 1.45PM accused demanded money to consume liquor, victim refused to give money and on this the petitioner poured kerosene oil on her and put her on fire. 5. On the statement of Kanta Devi a case under Sections 498-A, 307 IPC was registered, Kanta Devi died on 22.5.2009 and in these Section 302 IPC was also added. On completion of investigation, challan has been submitted in the Court, charge has been framed and now case has been fixed for prosecution of evidence from 26.10. 2009 to 31.10.2009. 6. On behalf of the petitioner it has been submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The petitioner was arrested on 26.5.2009 and since then he is in custody. The trial will take some time and therefore, detention of the petitioner for indefinite period is not necessary when after completion of investigation case is pending for trial in the Court. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioner had filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur on 31.8.2009. 7. The petitioner is ready to furnish bail bonds in accordance with the directions of this Court. The petitioner had filed bail application which was rejected by the learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur on 31.8.2009. 7. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application and has submitted that petitioner himself is serving in police but despite that he had committed serious offence by putting his wife on fire and the victim ultimately died. It has been submitted that it is not in public interest to enlarge petitioner on bail. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner and Kanta Devi were married in the year 1988, three children were born to them from the wedlock who are -3- grown up. The allegations against the petitioner are serious, he put Kanta Devi on fire on the ground that she refused to give money for taking liquor. It is not in public interest to release the petitioner on bail. The bail application of petitioner was earlier rejected by learned Sessions Judge Hamirpur on 31.8.2009, no change of circumstances has been pointed out after 31.8.2009 for releasing the petitioner on bail. There is no merit in the petition which is dismissed.