Bench dismissed the plea for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC. The court held that custodial interrogation was necessary due to serious allegations of dowry harassment contributing to the daughter-in-law's death within 16 months of marriage.
Application for pre-arrest bail under Section 438 CrPC dismissed. No bail granted.
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.
CRM M�18353 of 2020 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
CRM M�18353 of 2020 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 21, 2020
Dhan Kaur 2..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab 2..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU.
�.�
Present: Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for petitioner. Mr. Rana Harjasdeep Singh, DAG, Punjab.
�.�
������������������������
��������������������
This is an application for placing on record the post� mortem report as Annexure P�4
For the reasons mentioned therein, the same is allowed. Copy of Postmortem Report is permitted to be taken on record as Annexure P�4.
Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate
place.
����������������
Present petition has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of pre�arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.0150 dated 19.05.2020 under Sections
CRM M�18353 of 2020 (O&M) [2]
406, 498�A, 34 of IPC, and Section 304�B added later on, registered at Police Station Sadar Amritsar, District Amritsar.
Above FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by complainant �Phulla Rani (mother of deceased) with the allegations that her younger daughter� Simran (since deceased) was a BAMS doctor and married with son of the petitioner, namely, Dr.Dilbagh Singh on 01.02.2019. Dowry beyond their capacity was given to deceased, but after few days of marriage, son of the petitioner started harassing the deceased for bringing more dowry and as such, an amount of Rs.5 lacs was deposited in her account which was misappropriated by the son of the petitioner. Also alleged that deceased told the complainant that her husband as well as her in�laws are demanding money for construction of a hospital, and they were harassing her mentally and physically. Deceased was working in City Hospital, Amritsar; whereas her husband is also employed in SWIFT Hospital, Amritsar as a BAMS Doctor and both of them were residing in a rented accommodation at Amritsar. On 17.05.2020, husband of the deceased informed the complainant that she herself got injected an injection and was in a serious condition in City Hospital, Majitha Road, Amritsar. Complainant, her husband and other family members reached City Hospital and shifted the deceased to Fortis Escorts Hospital, Amritsar for better treatment, who was in a serious condition. It is also alleged that complainant was told by husband of the deceased that she tried to commit suicide
CRM M�18353 of 2020 (O&M) [3]
by injecting an injection, but she is not sure as to whether deceased herself injected the injection on account of harassment from her husband, her in�laws i.e. Sarabjit Singh (father�in�law) and petitioner� Dhan Kaur (mother�in�law) or that injection was given to her by the son of the petitioner.
It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the allegations of the prosecution, there is no specific instance quoted that petitioner ever made any demand of dowry from the deceased or her parents. It is also the contention that deceased along with her husband were residing separately at Amritsar; whereas the petitioner is residing at Village Gag, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar. Further contended that petitioner has no role at all for the commission of the alleged offence and she is ready to join investigation.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper� book.
Paper�book reveals that ASI Kulwant Singh visited Fortis Hospital on 17.05.2020 and 18.05.2020, but deceased was declared unfit for making any statement. Then ultimately on 19.05.2020, the above FIR was registered under Sections 406, 498�A and 34 IPC, but during the course of treatment, deceased died on 21.05.2020 resulting into the addition of offence under Section 304�B IPC.
Concededly, the marriage of deceased had taken place with the son of the petitioner on 01.02.2019 and she died as an
CRM M�18353 of 2020 (O&M) [4]
unnatural death on 21.05.2020 i.e. within a period of less than 16 months of the marriage. As per the post�mortem report (PMR) dated 21.05.2020 (P�4), following injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased :�
| ��� | ������� | ������ |
|---|---|---|
| ��� | ������ | |
| � | �������������������������������������������������� | � |
| ������������������������������������������� ����������������������������������������������� �������������� |
||
| � | !������������������������������������������� |
The cause of death recorded in the PMR is as under:�
Undisputedly, the death in this case has resulted on
account of poisoning and this is a matter of investigation as to whether deceased herself got injected the injection or someone else including son of the petitioner is responsible for the same. There are specific allegations that an amount of Rs.5 lacs was deposited in the account of deceased on the asking of her husband and that is alleged to have been misappropriated by him. As per the allegations in the FIR, deceased was pressurized to bring money for construction of the Hospital and name of the petitioner is specifically mentioned for that demand. Although it is claimed on behalf of the petitioner that she is residing in Village Gag, Tehsil Nangal, District Rupnagar; whereas the deceased along with her husband were residing in the rented accommodation at Gali No.4, Gopal Nagar,
CRM M�18353 of 2020 (O&M) [5]
Majitha Road, Amritsar, but at best, it would be a plea of defence during trial, thus the same will not altogether wash out the allegations levelled in the FIR for the purpose of granting pre�arrest bail to the petitioner in an offence under Section 304�B IPC.
Since the allegations are serious in nature, therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary to reveal the truth leading to the death of the deceased, therefore, this Court does not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of pre�arrest bail to the petitioner .
In view of the above, this Court is left with no option except to dismiss the present petition.
Ordered accordingly.
The above observations may not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
| July 21, 2020 sanjay |
(MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU) JUDGE |
|---|---|
| Whether speaking/ reasoned: | Yes/ No. |
| Whether Reportable: | Yes/No. |
RAJENDER KUMAR 2020.07.23 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2 issues framed by the court
Whether pre-arrest bail should be granted to the mother-in-law accused of demanding dowry leading to the suicide of her daughter-in-law.
Whether the allegations in the FIR require custodial interrogation for the truth leading to the death of the deceased.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Dhan Kaur
State of Punjab
Mahabir Singh Sindhu
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
