Dismissed

Sita Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 May 2012CRM-M/14360/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed an application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. The petitioners were accused of murder causing burn injuries. The court declined bail due to serious allegations, including a dying declaration and risks of witness tampering.

What did the court decide?

The petition for grant of anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Sita Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Cheating and Forgery | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

-1-

¶2

Crl.M.No.M-14360 of 2012(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶4

Crl.M.No.M-14360 of 2012(O&M) Date of Decision: May 16, 2012

Sita Ram and others

.....Petitioners

State of Haryana and another

¶9

.....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr.Ramesh Goyat, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶12

.......

¶13

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶14

Crl.M.No.29127 of 2012

¶15

Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

¶16

Crl.M.No.M-14360 of 2012

¶17

The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners for offence under Sections 302/34 IPC for which petitioners have been summoned.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone through the whole record carefully, including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, vide which application filed on behalf of the present petitioners for anticipatory bail was dismissed.

¶19

Briefly stated, death of Dilbag s/o Sita Ram r/o Dhanana had taken place on account of receipt of 100% burn injuries in PGIMS Rohtak. After his admission in PGIMS Rohtak, information was received in the police Station. ASI Mohan alongwith Constable Sunil Kumar visited the hospital and obtained opinion of the doctor regarding condition of the

¶20

Crl.M.No.M-14360 of 2012(O&M) -2-

¶21

injured to make statement. The doctor declared the patient fit to give statement and thereafter statement of injured was recorded. He stated that he was working as a Mason and was having three daughters and one son and that there was a dispute between the brothers. He further stated that on 8.6.2011, i.e., one day prior to recording of his statement, the dispute was compromised and, however, in the night at about 10.00 p.m., while he was sleeping in his house, his brother Hari Parkash and his wife Kokal and his father Sita Ram came to him. His brother was having a cane of kerosene oil in his hand. His bhabi and his father caught hold of him and his brother sprinkled kerosene oil upon him and set him ablaze. On his raising alarm, many villagers reached there and his father, brother and bhabhi ran away. He was brought to the hospital by Ramesh s/o Dharam Singh.

¶22

However, ASI during investigation interrogated some villagers and the accused and it was told that deceased was in the habit of creating dramas and that as he was under influence of liquor, he committed suicide and hence, cancellation report was sent by the police. However, separate complaint was filed by wife of deceased. After recording preliminary evidence, petitioners were summoned to face trial for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

¶23

It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that as police submitted cancellation report after investigation, their custodial interrogation is not required and, however, they are ready to appear before learned trial Court and face trial.

¶24

However, there are serious allegations against petitionersaccused. Deceased himself suffered dying declaration implicating his own

¶25

Crl.M.No.M-14360 of 2012(O&M) -3-

¶26

father, brother and brother's wife. Specific roles have been attributed to each one of them. It has also come on record as is clear from the order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sonepat, dismissing bail application of the petitioners that affidavit of complainant was procured by the petitioners by putting pressure upon her on the basis of which FIR was cancelled. Hence, there are chances of petitioners pressurising prosecution witnesses again if released on bail.

¶27

Hence, there are serious allegations against petitioners-accused. In view of the these facts, it is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioners-accused.

¶28

Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioners-Sita Ram, Smt.Reshma @ Kakal and Hari Parkash for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit.

¶29

(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge

¶30

16.5.2012 meenu

Sita Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sita Ram and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rekha and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Hitender Singh and Ors. Vs Jaspreet Kaur

Gurpreet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Mohinder Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Vinay Dhawan Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Munish Kumar Zakhmi & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.