This petition under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. sought cancellation of regular and anticipatory bail. The High Court dismissed the petition, finding no merit as there was no violation of bail conditions by the respondents and the trial court had not required them for further investigation.
Petition for cancellation of bail dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
CRM-M 25022 of 2008
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M 25022 of 2008 Decided on 06.10.2009
Raj Kumari
..Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
--Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
PRESENT: Mr.R.S.Sihota,Sr Advocate, with Mr.Ashok Sharma,Advocate,for the petitioners
Mr.R.S.Rawat, A.A.G.Punjab.
Mr.V.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the complainant
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J:
This is a petition under Section 439 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') for cancellation of regular bail granted to respondent No.4 and anticipatory bail granted to respondent No.5 vide order dated 26.8.2008 passed by Addl. Sessions Judge, Amritsar in case registered vide FIR No.454 dated 28.12.2006, Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar, under Sections 498-A/304 (B)/120-B IPC.
Briefly stated the prosecution case is that Anju Bala alias Sakshi (since deceased) and Rakesh Kumar (respondent No.4), were got married on 30.9.2000. They had a daughter, named, Chahat aged about three years. Anju Bala alias Sakshi (since deceased) was subjected to
2
CRM-M 25022 of 2008
cruelty by family members of respondent No.4. Anju Bala Alias Sakshi expired on 20.4.2005 and her dead body was cremated without getting any post mortem conducted and one agreement was also executed on a stamp paper dated 19.4.2005 prior to her death.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in this case, the matter with regard to death of Anju Bala alias Sakshi was tried to be hushed up, as a result of which, the petitioner had to file CRM-M 13986 of 2006 in which a direction was issued on 28.3.2006 to the S.S.P, Ludhiana, to get the matter investigated by a Gazetted Officer. It is further submitted that since no action was being taken against the respondents, therefore, the petitioner had to file another CRM-M 29141 of 2007, in which a direction was issued on 8.8.2008 to S.S.P,Amritsar, to ensure that the investigation is concluded within two months from that date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that firstly the respondents managed that the case should not be registered and if it was registered, then it should not make any headway, therefore, this itself is a sufficient ground for cancellation of bail.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the deceased was in family way before her death and at the time of delivery, due to excessive bleeding, she expired. However, a girl child was born, who is with the respondents. It is also submitted that earlier a cancellation report was filed because Dr. Jaspreet Singh Grover of Preet Hospital, where the deceased had delivered a child, had stated that the death of the deceased took place due to excessive bleeding and was natural. In the enquiry conducted by the police, it was found that parents
CRM-M 25022 of 2008 3
of the deceased were present at the time of cremation. It was also observed by the Court below, while granting bail to respondent No.4, that he is in judicial custody since 23.7.2008 and is not required for further investigation as the trial would take long time. While granting anticipatory bail to respondent No.5, it was observed that in the FIR, there is hardly any allegation against him. It was also opined that respondent No.5 is a resident of Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra (H.P.) and no recovery of any type is required to be effected from him.
Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there are eight witnesses, out of which two have already been examined and the next date for evidence in this case is fixed for 29.9.2009. It is further submitted that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not violated any terms and conditions as imposed upon them at the time of granting bail.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that out of 8 witnesses, two prosecution witnesses have already been examined and there is no allegation that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have misused the concession of bail granted by the trial Court, I do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.
However, nothing stated here-in-above, shall be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case before the Court below.
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
06.10.2009 RR
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the bail granted to respondent No.4 and anticipatory bail to respondent No.5 should be cancelled.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Raj Kumari
State of Punjab
Rakesh Kumar
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
