Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 3037 (PNJ)

Sarvan v. State Of Haryana

2019-11-18

GURVINDER SINGH GILL

body2019
JUDGMENT Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. (Oral) - The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in respect of FIR No.654 dated 21.9.2019 under Sections 306, 34, 498-A IPC, Police Station Model Town-Rewari, District Rewari, Haryana. 2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Giriraj brother of deceased wherein it has been alleged that his sister Rekha was married to petitioner-Sarvan on 16.5.2010 and that they had given dowry much beyond their means at the time of marriage, but in-laws of her sister were not happy with the same and she used to be harassed time-&-again by her in-laws who were also demanding an amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- for purchase of a plot. It is alleged that Rekha used to be repeatedly beaten up for not being able to fulfill the demands of her in-laws. It is further alleged that the petitioner used to return home everyday under the influence of liquor and also used to hurl abuses. It is further alleged that Sarvan had even attempted to kill the complainants sister on an earlier occasion in the month of July/August, 2018. It is alleged that now the petitioner has ultimately strangulated his sister to death on 1.9.2019. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case and that the entire allegations as levelled in the FIR pertaining to the alleged harassment of deceased at the hands of petitioner or demand of dowry or cash amount of Rs.5,00,000/- have been cooked up after consultation and that the FIR came to be lodged after 20 days of the occurrence. 4. Learned counsel has further submitted that in fact it is a case where the deceased had committed suicide on account of some depression and that when the statement of the father of the deceased was recorded on 2.9.2019 i.e. on the very next date of the death, he had given virtually given clean chit and had stated that his daughter has ended her life by hanging herself due to mental problem and that they do not suspect anybody for having killed his daughter. 5. 5. Learned counsel has further submitted that in fact another sister of the deceased is also married in the same house and who has furnished an affidavit Annexure P-6 deposing categorically that neither she nor her sister had ever been beaten up by her in-laws and nor any demand of dowry had even been raised. 6. Learned counsel has further submitted that even as per post-mortem report, it is a case of death by hanging and there is nothing to suggest that it is a case of death by strangulation. Learned counsel has thus prayed for grant of anticipatory bail. 7. Opposing the petition, Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that since specific and categoric allegations have levelled in the FIR against the petitioner regarding alleged harassment of the deceased, no case for grant of bail is made out. 8. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that delay in lodging the FIR was mainly on account of fact that the complainant party was being pressurized to effect a compromise mainly on account of the fact that another daughter of the complainant is also married in the same house. Learned counsel for the complainant has further submitted that in fact video recording on mobile phone of petitioner shows the petitioner standing in Panchayat with folded hands pleading for effecting a compromise which would clearly show that it is a case of homicidal death and not of suicide. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that daughter of the deceased is also seen in another video clip stating specifically that the petitioner had strangulated the deceased. A prayer has thus been made for dismissal of the petition. 9. I have considered rival contentions addressed before this Court. Learned counsel for the complainant has also submitted that daughter of the deceased is also seen in another video clip stating specifically that the petitioner had strangulated the deceased. A prayer has thus been made for dismissal of the petition. 9. I have considered rival contentions addressed before this Court. It is no doubt correct that there are allegations levelled in the FIR pertaining to alleged harassment on account of demand of dowry and beatings having been given by the petitioner to the deceased ever-since the date of her marriage, but, it remains unexplained as to why, in case deceased was harassed in this manner since 2010, her father did not state even a word when his statement was recorded on the next day immediately after death of complainants sister-Rekha and as to why he chose to specifically state that his daughter had ended life due to mental illness and that they do not suspect anybodys hand in her death. 10. Still further, cause of death, as per post-mortem report, it is a case of antemortem by hanging, which could rule out the possibility of homicidal death due to strangulation. 11. Still further, there is nothing on record to show that ever-since the marriage of the deceased, the complainant or anybody else had ever lodged any complaint before any authority regarding any harassment or raising demand of dowry by the petitioner or by any other member of his family. 12. A perusal of post-mortem report shows that two of the brother of the deceased were also present there on 2.9.2019. It again remains unexplained as to why even the said two brothers did not state anything or did not suspect the hand of the petitioner in any manner. It is only after 21 days when the third brother of the deceased came out with another version that the present FIR lodged. 13. Having regard to the aforesaid facts & circumstances of the present case, it would certainly be debatable as to whether it is a case of homicidal death or a case of suicide or as to whether the deceased had indeed be harassed by petitioner in order to press upon their demands of dowry. As such, in my opinion, it is not a case warranting custodial interrogation. The petition merits acceptance & is hereby allowed. As such, in my opinion, it is not a case warranting custodial interrogation. The petition merits acceptance & is hereby allowed. In the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Arresting/Investigating Officer. However, the petitioner shall join the investigation as and when called upon to do so and cooperate with the Investigating Officer and shall also abide by the conditions as provided under Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. 14. It is, however, made clear that none of the observations recorded above shall be construed to be any expression on merits of the main case.