Soma Devi Vs State of Hp

The police received telephonic information on 21.1.2024 that two persons were brought to the Regional Hospital, Una in burnt condition. The police went to verify the information and found Jasvir Singh and Aarti Devi to be injured and admitted to the hospital. Jasvir Singh made a statement that he was married to Aarti about six years before the incident. One son was born to them. He was to go to his sister’s house on 21.1.2024. This led to a quarrel between him and his wife. The injured Jasvir Singh went to his sister’s home and when he returned, his wife Aarti picked up a quarrel with him. She went to the kitchen and threatened to put the house on fire. She switched on the knob of the gas cylinder. When Jasvir tried to switch off the knob of the cylinder, Aarti ignited the gas with the lighter. The kitchen caught fire. Aarti and Jasvir suffered injuries due to the fire. The injured were brought to the hospital. The police went to the spot and recovered the articles. Aarti was referred to PGI, Chandigarh but she was not found competent to make a statement. Her father made a statement under Section 154 of Cr.PC that Aarti was married to Jasvir in the year 2017. Her brother-in-law, sister-in-law (petitioners) and husband

¶15

3

¶16

started harassing her soon after the marriage. The informant Hukam Chand got a house constructed for his daughter; however, the husband, brother-in-law and sister-in-law of Aarti continued to harass her. Aarti informed her father on 21.1.2024 that her brother-in-law Satnam, sister-in-law Soma Devi and husband Jasvir were harassing her. She had put herself on fire due to harassment. The police registered the FIR and conducted the investigation. Aarti succumbed to her injuries. The Medical Officer stated that she had died due to ‘Septicemia consequent to infected thermal burns’. The police recorded the statement of Gurmail Singh and Chairman, Nagar Palika Tahliwal, namely, Prakash Chand, who stated that Gurmail Singh had two sons, who were residing separately. Aarti and her husband quarrelled on 21.1.2024, due to which she set herself on fire. Jasvir Singh is admitted to the hospital.

¶17

The petitioners Satnam Singh and Soma Devi filed two separate petitions seeking their pre-arrest bail. It was asserted that they are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The allegations against the petitioners do not constitute the commission of any offence. They belong to respectable families and are permanent residents of District Una. There is no chance

¶18

4

¶19

of their absconding. The petitioners are residing separately from Jasvir and Aarti and they were not involved in the commission of any offences. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the petitioners be released on bail.

¶20

A status report was filed by the State reproducing the contents of the FIR. It was asserted that the petitioners had joined the investigation and they were interrogated. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners.

¶21

I have heard Mr Vivek Khadwal and Ms Shivani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Ms Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General for the respondent/State.

¶22

Mr. Vivek Khadwal, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are innocent and they were falsely implicated. The material collected by the prosecution shows that the petitioners are residing separately from Aarti and her husband. The allegations against the petitioners are general and vague without any particulars. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petitions be allowed and the petitioners be released on pre-arrest bail.

¶23

5

¶24

Ms. Avni Kochhar, learned Deputy Advocate General

¶25

for the respondent-State submitted that the petitioners were specifically named by the father of the deceased. The offences alleged against the petitioners are heinous and the concession of pre-arrest bail should not be granted to the petitioners.

¶26

I have given considerable thought to the submissions at the bar and have gone through the record carefully.

¶27

It was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in P. Chidambaram vs. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 (9) SCC 24 that the power of pre-arrest is extraordinary and should be exercised sparingly. It was observed:

¶28

“67. Ordinarily, arrest is a part of the procedure of the investigation to secure not only the presence of the accused but several other purposes. Power under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is an extraordinary power and the same has to be exercised sparingly. The privilege of pre-arrest bail should be granted only in exceptional cases. The judicial discretion conferred upon the court has to be properly exercised after application of mind as to the nature and gravity of the accusation; the possibility of the applicant fleeing justice and other factors to decide whether it is a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail. Grant of anticipatory bail to some extent interferes in the sphere of investigation of an offence and hence, the court must be circumspect while exercising such power for the grant of anticipatory bail. Anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of rule and it has to be granted only when the

¶29

6

¶30

court is convinced that exceptional circumstances exist to resort to that extraordinary remedy.”

¶31

It was specifically stated in the status report that as

¶32

per the statement of Prakash Chand, Gurmail Chand had two sons, who are residing separately. The initial version showed that the deceased and her husband had quarrelled. This was also found to be correct during the investigation. The father of the deceased stated that the petitioners were harassing Aarti; however, the particulars of harassment were not given and a general statement was made. The police had found after the investigation that the petitioners are residing separately from Aarti and her husband. The police also stated that the petitioners joined the investigation and no recovery is to be effected from them. Keeping in view these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody and the petitioners are entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail.

¶33

Hence, the present petitions are allowed and the order dated 15.2.2024 is made absolute till the disposal of the case. The petitioners will continue to abide by all the terms and conditions imposed by the Court.

¶34

7

¶35

11. The observation made herein before shall remain

¶36

confined to the disposal of the petitions and will have no

¶37

bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.

¶38

( Rakesh Kainthla) Judge

¶39