Ajit Pal Singh vs State of Punjab

S.C. Malte, J.

Petitioner Ajit Pal Singh was the husband of deceased Devinderjit Kaur. Their marriage took place on 8.12.1996. Devinderjit Kaur died due to burning on 31.3.1997, at her matrimonial home. The father of the deceased lodged an FIR and made a grievance that present petitioner Ajit Pal Singh, his mother Surinderjit Kaur and sisterinlaw Sarbpreet Kaur used to harass and torture his daughter, on the issue of the inadequate dowry and used to demand more dowry. It is further alleged by him that on being fed up due to the torture and harassment, his daughter Devinderjit Kaur committed suicide. On the basis of the FIR offence under Sections 304B and 498A both read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. The police submitted chargesheet for these two offences.

When the matter came up before the Session Court, it noticed that the postmortem report indicated following ante mortem injuries namely :

(i) two reddish brown abrasions 3.5 x 2 cm and 2.5 x 1.5 cm were present on the left side of the forehead four cms above innelend of eyebrow and ostcend of the left eyebrow.

(ii) Five reddish brown abrasions were present in front of right upper arm and exilla. The sizes varied from 3 x 1 cm to 1.5 x 1 cm.

(iii) Four reddish brown abrasions were present in front of right upper arm. Their sizes varied from 1 x 0.75 cm to 2 x 1.5 cm.

On noting these ante mortem injuries, the Sessions Court found it necessary to incorporate offence under Section 302 I.P.C. also while framing the charge. Accordingly, on 23.8.1997 charge under Section 302 was framed alongwith alternative charge under Section 304B IPC. However, offence under Section 498A IPC seems to have escaped the attention of the Additional Sessions Judge while framing the charge.

Initially, the bail application was submitted before this Court on a bona fide belief that offence was under Sections 304B and 498A IPC. It appears that the subsequent development in changing the offence under Section 302 IPC had not by that time come to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner, and he redrafted the petition for bail solely depending on the contents of the FIR and the order by which the Session Court had rejected the bail for offences under Section 304B and 498A IPC. An application for cancellation of bail was, thereafter, moved in this Court and bail was cancelled by observing that the order granting bail was based on wrong information and that is required to be corrected. However, at the same time the original bail granted to the petitioner was continued till 3.7.1998 in order to enable the accused to move the Court for seeking bail on merits. That order was taken up to the Supreme Court and was confirmed by maintaining interim bail.

Meanwhile, the Medical Officer was examined in the trial Court. The evidence of the father of the deceased girl was recorded partly and his cross examination was adjourned to 9.11.1998 for confronting him with certain documents which he was directed to produce on the next date. Itm therefore, clearly appears that the two material witnesses have already been examined by the prosecution. Learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab made it clear that none of the material witnesses who are to be examined belong to the village where the incident had taken place.

In the background of these events, the question of grant of bail has arisen. It is pertinent to note that there is absolutely no grievance that these accused while on bail miscused their liberty. There is nothing to indicate that there was any tampering with the witnesses. The important two material witnesses, as mentioned above have already been examined. Now the material witnesses proposed to be examined are the mother of the deceased and one of the panch who attested the recovery of the articles at the spot. These witnesses are not from the village of the petitioner. The petitionerAjit Pal Singh was behind the bar for a span of eight months before he was released on bail. In view of that bail was granted to Ajit Pal Singh vide final order.

This brings me to consider the application for cancellation of bail of Surinder Jit Kaur, motherinlaw of the deceased. She was granted bail because my learned sister (Justice Dr. Sarojnei Saksena) observed that since the husband was granted bail in a case under Section 304B IPC, the case of motherinlaw would not be different. It is now submitted that since now the charge framed by the Session court is under 302 IPC also, the bail granted to the accused in this case also deserves to be cancelled as has been cancelled in the case of coaccused Ajit Pal Singh. In my opinion, the cancellation of bail and against consideration of the bail application by the same accused after the offence under Section 302 was added, would be nothing but technical exercise, and ultimately the matter would depend on the merits of the case. The merits of the case are already before me in the form of the petition by Ajit Pal Singh in the similar situation. I an, therefore, of the view that since for the reasons stated above, Ajit Pal Singh deserves bail, for the same reasons the bail granted to motherinlaw Surinderjit Kaur should also be confirmed as bail granted in a case under Sections 304B and 302 read with 34 IPC.

Bail granted to both these petitioners for the offences punishable under Sections 304B and 302 read with 34 IPC in a case pending before the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, arising out of FIR No. 48/97 dated 31.3.1997, under Sections 302/304B/498A IPC, P.S. Civil Lines Amritsar, on each of them executing the bail bond and surety bond in the sum of Rs. 10,000/ to the satisfaction of the trial Judge.