Single judge dismissed petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by elderly parents-in-law involved in a dowry death case. The court held that custodial interrogation is necessary for serious offenses to bring out salient aspects of the case at the investigation stage.
Pre-arrest bail applications for both petitioners were 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.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 760 of 2013 and Crl. Misc. No.M-801 of 2013 ----1--
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 760 of 2013(O&M) Date of decision. 29.01.2013
Kanta Devi
....... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
........ Respondent
2- Crl. Misc. No. M- 801 of 2013 Date of decision. 29.01.2013
Ram Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. G.S. Kaura,Advocate for the petitioners.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Crl. Misc. No.1448 of 2013 in Crl. Misc. No.M-760 of 2013
Miscellaneous application is allowed as prayed for.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 760 of 2013 and Crl. Misc. No.M-801 of 2013 ----2--
Crl. Misc.Nos.M-760 and 801 of 2013
Kanta Devi and her husband Ram Singh, the petitioners, by way of the above mentioned two petitions, have sought pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 148 dated 26.09.2012 at Police Station Lalru, District SAS Nagar, for an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are old persons. According to him, they are even suffering from various diseases. According to him, Kanta Devi is suffering from diabetes and Ram Singh is suffering from heart problem . It is further submitted that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioners in this case and, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioners is not required and in this way they are entitled to pre-arrest bail.
It is a case registered for an offence punishable under section 304-B IPC. The petitioners are parents-in-law of Manpreet Kaur, who was married only in October, 2010, who could not survive even for a period of two years after her marriage. The role of the parents-in-law alongwith the husband of the bride in such cases cannot be overlooked. This is a case at the stage of investigation. The submissions regarding ailments would be relevant at the time of consideration of regular bail.
Crl. Misc. No. M- 760 of 2013 and Crl. Misc. No.M-801 of 2013 ----3--
Recovery alone is not the object of custodial interrogation.
The offence is quite serious and to bring to light the salient aspects of the case, custodial interrogation is required. Hence, I do not find the petitioners to be entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Both the petitions are, consequently, dismissed.
January 29, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioners are entitled to pre-arrest bail in a case涉及 dowry death under section 304-B IPC.
Whether ailments of old petitioners justify dispensation with custodial interrogation at the investigation stage.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kanta Devi
Ram Singh
The State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
