In a petition for anticipatory bail under section 438 Cr.P.C. in a murder case, the High Court rejected the petitioner's plea that the prosecution story about illicit relations was unbelievable. The court held that trial is the stage to appreciate such evidence.
Petitioner does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail; petition 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.
1
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1154 of 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-1154 of 2012 (O&) Date of Decision: January 12th, 2012
Kashmiri Lal .... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Sanjeev Manrai, Advocate, for the petitioner.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Kashmiri Lal, petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail by way of this petition brought under section 438 Cr. P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No. 89 dated 22.8.2011 at Police Station Sadar, Bathinda, for an offence punishable under sections 302, 120-B read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The case in brief is that the deceased Yadav Rai had been son-in-law of Smt. Santosh Rani, who was working as a domestic servant with the petitioner, who is alleged to have been keeping illicit relations with her. Santosh Rani is stated to be a widow, whose daughter Meena Rani had been married with Yadav Rai (deceased). This Yadav Rai is said to have been opposing his mother-in-law for her keeping illicit relations with Kashmiri Lal. Kashmiri Lal and Santosh Rani are alleged to have conspired together to eliminate Yadav Rai. The
Crl. Misc. No.M- 1154 of 2012
2
petitioner is further alleged to have supplied poison to Santosh Rani, who mixed the same in the drink of Yadav Rai and thus, Yadav Rai is said to have died of poisoning.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the story set up by the prosecution is unbelievable. According to him, it cannot be believed that Santosh Rani was having illicit relations with the petitioner as well as her son-in-law. He has further submitted that father of the deceased is said to have over-heard the petitioner and Santosh Rani talking about the murder of Yadav Rai. He has further submitted that this type of evidence is difficult to be believed. He has also submitted that the evidence of 'extra judicial confession' collected by the investigating agency is also conflicting and cannot be believed.
So far as the alleged relations of Santosh Rani with petitioner as well as her son-in-law is concerned, it can be said that the society has seen many aberrations in the relations and this part of the prosecution case cannot be disbelieved saying that it is not possible. The evidence of the father of the deceased and the persons before whom the petitioner and Santosh Rani have made extra judicial confessions is to be appreciated at the trial and this is no stage for appreciating the same. Keeping in view the same, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. The petition is, consequently, dismissed.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE
January 12, 2012 som
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail in a murder case.
Whether the plea regarding unbelievable prosecution story regarding illicit relations was accepted to grant bail.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kashmiri Lal
State of Punjab
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
