A bail application under Section 439 CrPC in a murder case termed an honour killing was dismissed. The court held that despite precedents limiting co-accused statements, specific facts and evidence threats warranted denial of bail.
Application for grant of bail to the petitioner dismissed at this stage.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Munni wife of Krishan
Crl. Misc. No. M-11398 of 2012 Date of Decision: 13.08.2012 ..Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ..Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH.
Present : Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate for Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Munisha Lamba, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana.
Paramjeet Singh J.(oral)
This is a petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of concession of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 435 dated 24.11.2011 under Sections 302/120-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code registered at Police Station Sadar Rohtak, District Rohtak.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case only on the basis of a statement given by one of the co-accused. He further contended that statement of a co-accused cannot be used against another co-accused. He further contends that even if it is a confession, but that confession is a weak type of evidence and cannot be used against the petitioner. In support of his arguments, he has placed reliance on judgments of this Court titled as Sukhbir Singh V. State of Haryana 2002(1) R.C.R. (Crl.) 323 and Arup Bhuyan V. State of Assam 2011(1)R.C.R. (Crl.) 882.
Crl. Misc. No. M-11398 of 2012 [2]
Learned Counsel for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last more than eight months and challan has already been presented against the petitioner as well as other accused persons and after filing of the challan, two more accused have been identified and supplementary challan against them is likely to be filed very soon. In this manner, the trial of the case will take long time and there is no apprehension of the petitioner tampering with the evidence or pressurizing the witnesses and therefore, petitioner is entitled to be released on regular bail.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has pointed out that the police file reveals that it is a case of honour killing because deceased Deepak and Manisha daughter of the present petitioner were having some relations. Learned State Counsel further made reference to the mobile calls which are on the police file to indicate that deceased Deepak and Manisha daughter of the present petitioner were in constant touch and the boy, namely, Deepak was called in the village on the mobile of Manisha and thereafter he was given beatings and murdered. The learned State Counsel further contended that State is considering this case from different angle. In such like cases evidence is mostly lacking because no one from the villages comes forward to support the prosecution version specifically in the State of Haryana where Khap Panchayats etc. are working. Learned State Counsel
Crl. Misc. No. M-11398 of 2012
[3]
further contends that there are chances of influencing the witnesses which will affect the proceedings of the trial. The daughter of the present petitioner is stated to be confined in Nari Niketan as she was in love with the deceased, namely, Deepak.
I have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for both the parties. It is true that statement of co-accused cannot be used against another co-accused but the facts and circumstances of the case clearly show that deceased Deepak and Manisha daughter of the present petitioner were in love and in pursuance of a call from the cell phone of Manisha, deceased Deepak went to the village of Manisha where he was subsequently given beatings and was murdered. The documentary evidence in the shape of mobile phone calls is indicative of the said fact. Both the judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts of the present case. Keeping in view the fact that evidence is yet to be led before the trial Court and there is apprehension of tampering with the evidence of the prosecution, no ground for grant of bail to the petitioner is made out at this stage.
Accordingly, the application for grant of bail to the petitioner is dismissed at this stage.
(PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE
13.08.2012 'ravinder'
3 issues framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who faces murder charges based largely on co-accused statements.
Whether the trial will suffer due to delay and apprehension of interference in the absence of completed prosecution evidence.
Whether the circumstances of honour killing justify denying relief despite reliance on cited precedents.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sukhbir Singh V. State of HaryanaReferred¶11
Sukhbir Singh V. State of Haryana
Arup Bhuyan V. State of AssamReferred¶11
Arup Bhuyan V. State of Assam
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Munni
State of Haryana
PARAMJEET SINGH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
