Dismissed

Parshotam Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Mar 2013CRM-M/19673/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this bail application arising from a dowry death charge, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's plea for regular bail. The court noted conflicting evidence regarding the petitioner's presence at the crime scene and held that the submitted report of the investigating officer did not confer a benefit of acquittal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed without entertaining a detailed rebutta

What did the court decide?

Petition for regular bail dismissed. Direction issued to trial court to dispose of trial within 6 months.

Parshotam Singh Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM M- 19673 of 2012

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶4

CHANDIGARH.

¶5

CRM M-19673 of 2012 (O&M)

¶6

Date of Decision: April 23, 2013

Parshotam Singh

…..Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab

…..Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

¶13

-.-

¶14

Present:Mr. A.P.S. Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶15

Mr.G.S. Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. Mr.S.S. Rangi, Advocate.

¶16

-.-

¶17

M.M.S. BEDI, J.

¶18

Petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail in a case of dowry death registered at the instance of Sukhdev Singh. As per the allegations of the complainant, his daughter Gagandeep Kaur was married to Kulwant Singh in the year 2009. After few days of marriage her in-laws

¶19

CRM M- 19673 of 2012

¶20

[2]

¶21

started taunting her and asked her to bring Air Condition and Car. Petitioner is the elder brother of Kulwant Singh. On May 4, 2011, the complainant and his co-brother (sandhu) Manjit Singh had gone to the matrimonial house of Gagandeep Kaur in Village Himmatgarh Dhakala. They were told by her that petitioner, his wife Pavneet Kaur and mother -in-law Harjeet Kaur used to beat her and harass her for having brought less dowry. At 2.15 p.m., Gagandeep Kaur talked to her mother that she was not happy as her in-laws were demanding Rs.2 lacs to purchase a plot. After some time, the fatherin-law of Gagandeep Kaur informed that she had fallen on account of headache. When the complainant had gone in the evening to the house of Gagandeep Kaur, he found signs of strangulation on the neck of his daughter with marks of internal injuries on the body. The complainant lodged an FIR that her daughter Gagandeep Kaur had been killed by her husband Kulwant Singh, his brother Purshotam Singh (petitioner), his wife Pavneet Kaur and mother-in-law Harjeet Kaur by strangulation after giving beatings for greed of money.

¶22

The petitioner, during the course of investigation was declared innocent by Baldev Singh, DSP Internal Vigilance Cell after challan had been presented on the ground that on June 30, 2011, the petitioner was present in the Court of Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, SAS Nagar, Mohali and was not present in Village Himmatgarh Dhakala with deceased Gagandeep Kaur. The said officer had formed an opinion that the petitioner is having his own vehicle and owner of property worth lacs and that in case

¶23

CRM M- 19673 of 2012

¶24

[3]

¶25

he required money, he could ask for the same from his parents and from his own in-laws. Creating a ground for petitioner that he is innocent but on account of challan having been presented he may pursue his remedy in the Court in a compliant filed by Harminder Singh, the brother of his wife Pavneet Kaur. The report has been appended as annexure P-3.

¶26

The petition for bail was opposed by counsel for the complainant and State counsel, inter-alia on the ground that the petitioner on the basis of his call details was found to be located in the area of Saini Dhaba near Chawla Petrol Pump at the time of death of Gagandeep Kaur.

¶27

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that deceased Gagandeep Kaur was residing separately and that a reasonable rebuttal to the legal presumption is available to the petitioner.

¶28

I have considered the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit of report which has been procured after presentation of challan. The said report may be used as a document in defence. It will also not be prudent to enter into the niceties of the trial to appreciate the statement of complainant.

¶29

I have also considered the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been in custody w.e.f. August 10, 2011. I have gone through the statement of the complainant and his crossexamination. The various documents of defence relied upon by the petitioner have also been taken into consideration. It will not be appropriate at this stage to enter into the niceties of the trial to appreciate the fact

¶30

CRM M- 19673 of 2012

¶31

[4]

¶32

whether the presumption under Section 113-A of the Evidence Act stands prima facie rebutted.

¶33

The petition for bail is dismissed. However, a direction is issued to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the trial within a period of six months after the next date of hearing fixed before it.

¶34

April 23, 2013 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE

Parshotam Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parshotam Singh v. State of Punjab

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

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

Rajesh Kumar @ Raja Vs State of Punjab

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

Harcharan Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab

Raghbir Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Manoj Kumar Vs State of Haryana