Allowed

Sanjiv Kumar @ Satyabhan @ Chotu v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC19 Oct 2024CRM-M/14038/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Regular bail sought in a dowry death FIR involving alleged suicide of the petitioner's wife. Court noted custody of 1 year 8 months, no other cases against him, and trial yet to begin; granted bail without commenting on merits.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered released on regular bail on furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

Sanjiv Kumar @ Satyabhan @ Chotu Vs State of Punjab — Dowry and Cruelty | Punjab & Haryana HC (2024)

¶1

CRM-M-14038-2024 -1-

¶2

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

204

¶4

CRM-M-14038-2024

¶5

Date of Decision: 19.10.2024

¶6

Sanjiv Ku m ar @ Satyabhan @ Chotu

¶7

… Petitioner

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of P u njab ... Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

¶11

Present: - Mr. N.S. Kamboj, Advocate f o r the petitioner.

¶12

Ms. Aakanksha Gupta, AAG, Punjab.

¶13

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

¶14

The petitioner has filed the p r esent 1^st petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1 9 73, for grant of regular bail in case FIR N o. 225 dated 07.11.2022 re g istered under Sections 498-A, 304-B, 50 4 and 506 IPC and Sections 3 a n d 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 at Po l ice Station City Kotkapura, Dis t rict Faridkot.

¶15

The aforesaid FIR was regist e red on the basis of statement of the compl a inant/father of the deceased, which is reproduced as under:-

¶16

“ ..XXX This case has got reg i stered on the statement of Ram Chander son of Devideen r e sident of Madho Nagar, Bela District Oreia (U.P.) again s t Satyabhan @ Chotu son o f Rampal resident of Dodapur, B iduna, District Orela (U.P.) It was registered that the dau g hter of the complainant was married to Satyabhan @ Cho t u son of Rampal Singh resident of Dodapur, Biduna, Oreia, ( U.P.) on dated 27.04.2016. At the time of marriage, the f ather of the girl as per his approach has given Rs2,50, 0 00/- cash and Rs 50,000/- the domestic articles. After the m arriage the in- laws family o f the girl has demanded to bring one gold chain and one

¶17

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶18

CRM-M-14038-2024 -2-

¶19

Apachi motorcycle as a mor e dowry. But the parents of the girl were unable to give mor e dowry as of which the in-laws of the family has started h arassing the girl. On dated 11.07.2022 at about 10.00 P . M. call was received from the father-in-law of the girl nam e d Rampal that your girl Reena Devi has died, in the meanti m e on information on the spot Dhruv, Ramkhilawan, Muke s h and other people has come and saw that the body of girl w as lying and on her neck there was a deep mark, that can b e on hanging and right and left hand of the girl was broken. The initial enquiry of the case was conducted by C.O. Bid u na, Deputy Superintendent o f Police. During investigatio n it was found that this all occurrence was happene d at Ramgarhia Mohalla, Kotakpura. By keeping in v i ew the above said facts after consideration on the legal vi e w that what action to be taken by the district police in th e above said case. Sd/- SSP Faridkot, Xxxx....”

¶20

Learned counsel for the petiti o ner, inter alia, submits that the

¶21

petitioner w as married to the deceased o n 27.04.2016. One child is born out of the i r marriage. It is submitted th a t on 11.07.2022, wife of the petitioner h ad committed suicide by han g ing herself at the matrimonial home in U ttar Pradesh. The present FIR was registered by the father of the deceased after one month of the inc i dent in Uttar Pradesh. It was subsequen t ly transferred from UP to Di s trict Faridkot, on the basis of legal opin i on wherein it was found fit to register the present FIR at the concerned police station.

¶22

It is submitted that the da t e of incident is 11.07.2022, however, t h e present FIR was registered a f ter a delay of 01 month i.e. on 11.08.202 2 . In the FIR, there are allega t ions qua demand of one gold chain and o ne motorcycle. Learned couns e l for the petitioner submits that the said al l egations are false and fabricat e d as, in more than 06 years of marriage, t he deceased had made no com p laint whatsoever regarding any dowry de m and or harassment to her by the petitioner. Further, it is

¶23

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶24

CRM-M-14038-2024 -3-

¶25

submitted t hat it has been alleged in the F IR that the right hand and left foot of the deceased were broken. In this r egard, reference is made to the Post Mort e m Report dated 12.07.2022 (A n nexure R-1) wherein, no such injury is r e corded on the person of the de c eased. Moreover, the petitioner has been i n custody since the date of his a r rest i.e. 13.02.2023. Thus, it is prayed tha t he may be released on regular b ail.

¶26

Per Contra, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular b a il to the petitioner and submits that death has occurred within 06 year s and 03 months of marriage. Moreover, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner and it has b een categorically alleged in the FIR that the right hand and left foot of the deceased were broken. Howev e r, she is unable to deny that as per the P o st Mortem Report (Annexure R -1) of the deceased, no such injury is recorded in the same.

¶27

Reference has also been m ade to the medical opinion (Annexure R-2) of the examining Docto r who had conducted the postmortem o f the deceased, wherein it is rec o rded that there is only a single injury i.e. L igature Mark (19cm x 02 cm) present in front of neck below chin and j u st above thyroid; the cause o f death has been mentioned as Asphyxia d ue to Antimortem Hanging; a n d it is recorded that MLR of deceased a s also the inquest papers wer e not issued by the Hospital in Uttar Prad e sh. Even no viscera of the de c eased was sent to forensic lab since caus e of death as mentioned above is clear.

¶28

On instructions from ASI I q bal Singh, it is informed by learned co u nsel for the State that there wer e total 07 accused in the matter,

¶29

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶30

CRM-M-14038-2024 -4-

¶31

however, c hallan has been presented only a gainst the present petitioner on 13.05.202 3 . It is also pointed out that in para 9 of the status report dated 11.09.202 4 filed by way of affidavit of Sh. Jatinder Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, K o tkapura, District Faridkot, it is mentioned that the Deputy Superintendent of Police, concerned has recommen d ed to declare the remaining a ccused as innocent. However, final appr o val to the same is yet to be ac c orded. Further, it is submitted that charges have not been framed as yet; and there are total 16 prosecutio n witnesses, of whom none has b een examined, so far.

¶32

Learned counsel for the Sta t e has filed custody certificate dated 17.1 0 .2024 which is taken on record , as per which the petitioner has been in cu s tody as an undertrial for a peri o d of 01 year, 08 months and 01 day. Perusal of the custody certificate d e picts that the petitioner is not involved i n any other case.

¶33

Having heard learned couns e l for the parties, but without commenti n g on merits of the case, howe v er, keeping in view the totality of the fact s and circumstances of the case, including:(a) custody period of 01 year, 0 8 months and 01 day under g one by the petitioner as an undertrial; (b) perusal of the custody certi f icate depicts that the petitioner is not inv o lved in any other case; and (c ) the fact that trial has not yet commenced as the same is still at the stage of framing of charges, therefore, i ts conclusion will take consid e rable time, no useful purpose would be s erved by further detention of t h e petitioner. Thus, the present petition is allowed.

¶34

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

¶35

CRM-M-14038-2024 -5-

¶36

The petitioner-Sanjiv Kuma r @ Satyabhan @ Chotu S/o Rampal, i s ordered to be released on r egular bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate / Duty Magistrate, concerned.

¶37

However, it is made clear th a t nothing stated above shall be construed a s an expression of opinion on t h e merits of the case.

¶38

19.10.2024 ( NIDHI GUPTA ) rishu JUDGE

¶39

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

¶40

Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶41

RISHU KATARIA 2024.10.19 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

Sanjiv Kumar @ Satyabhan @ Chotu v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjiv Kumar @ Satyabhan @ Chotu 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

Bhavuk Mahindru Vs Dristy Kapoor and Another

Tejinderdeep Singh Vs State of Punjab

Raj Vs State of Haryana

Soumyajit Roy Vs State of Haryana

Amarjit Singh Vs Iqbal Kaur and Another

Mohd. Salim Vs State of Punjab and Anr.