Anokh Singh vs Sukhdev Singh

M.L. Singhal, J.

This is an application by one Anokh Singh whereby he has claimed that bail allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur to Sukhdev Singh respondent No. 1 in case FIR No. 348 dated 5.12.97 under Section 304 B/306 Indian Penal Code of PS Sadar Batala be cancelled.

Facts of the case projected by the prosecution are as follows :

Anokh Singh''s daughter Rajwinder Kaur was married to Sukhdev Singh respondent No. 1 on 16.11.94. Ever since her marriage, she was harassed by her inlaws saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate. On 28.11.97, she was allegedly poisoned to death by her husband Sukhdev Singh, fatherinlaw Swaran Singh, jeth Gurdev Singh and jethani Jatinder Kaur. Case was registered on 5.12.97. In the FIR, Anokh Singh made specific allegation that demands were made by Sukhdev Singh, Swaran Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jatinder Kaur. He also stated in the FIR that with great difficulty he could fulfil their demand to the tune of Rs. 1 lac. After 810 days again, he received letter from his daughter Rajwinder Kaur that her inlaws were demanding colour TV. On 19.11.94 something poisonous was administered to her which led to her death. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for Anokh Singh that Sukhdev Singh is the husband of his daughter and his daughter was sacrificed at the altar of dowry by Sukhdev Singh, his father Swaran Singh, his brother Gurdev Singh and his sisterinlaw Jatinder Kaur within about 3 years of her marriage. He should not have been allowed bail because if his demand for dowry had been fulfilled, he would have been benefited. He submitted that it was greed on his part that prompted him and others to lay demand on Rajwinder Kaur.

Learned counsel for Sukhdev Singh respondent, on the other hand, submitted that Sukhdev Singh never misused the concession of bail. He has not interfered with the course of fair trial. He was allowed bail on 28.2.98. Since his release on bail, he has been appearing before the court regularly. It was submitted that very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order directing the cancellation of bail already granted. It was held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Daulat Ram v. State of Haryana, 1995 SCC (Crl.) 237 that" generally speaking, the grounds for cancellation of bail, broadly (illustrative and not exhaustive) are interference or attempt to interfere with the due course of administration of justice or evasion or attempt to evade the due course of justice or abuse of the concession granted to the accused in any manner. The satisfaction of the court, on the basis of material placed on the record, of the possibility of the accused absconding is yet another reason justifying the cancellation of bail. However, bail once granted should not be cancelled in a mechanical manner without considering whether any supervening circumstances have rendered it no longer conducive to a fair trial to allow the accused to retain his freedom by enjoying the concession of bail during the trial."

It was observed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 Criminal Law Journal 160 that "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence."

It was submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Rajwinder Kaur was removed to DMC, Ludhiana by him where she died on 28.11.97. Parents of the deceased and other relations came to DMC, Ludhiana where Anokh Singh made statement on 29.11.97 in which no allegation of any sort was made that his daughter was sacrificed at the altar of dowry by Sukhdev Singh and the members of his family. Learned counsel for the respondent also submitted that a letter was written by her to her parents before her death in which she stated that she was being properly looked after by her husband.

Hon''ble Dr. (Mrs.) Sarojnei Saksena, J. had cancelled the anticipatory bail granted to Gurdev Singh and Jatinder Kaur. So far as Sukhdev Singh is concerned, he was allowed regular bail. He further submitted that death took place on 28.11.97 while the case was registered on 5.12.97. Anokh Singh came to DMC, Ludhiana and proceedings under section 174 Cr.P.C. were conducted. Anokh Singh made no statement at that time. He stated that he would verify the facts. He then submitted an affidavit alleging demand of dowry leading to the registration of this case. It was submitted that the husband of the deceased took her to Dhaliwal Hospital and then to DMC, Ludhiana and tried his best to save his wife. In the letter written by her, she accused her father inlaw of maltreatment. She stated that she was going to commit suicide on account of harassment caused to her by her fatherinlaw. In my opinion, the discretion in granting bail to Sukhdev Singh cannot be said to be injudicious. So, this Crl. Misc. Petition fails and is dismissed. Learned trial court is directed to remain absolutely uninfluenced by what has been observed by Shri S.K. Garg while allowing bail to Sukhdev Singh or by this court while refusing to cancel bail allowed to Sukhdev Singh by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur because those observations are only tentative meant to dispose of the prayer for bail only.

Case shall be withdrawn from the file of Shri S.K. Garg, Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur if the same is pending on his file and taken by learned Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur on his own file and if it is pending elsewhere, the same shall remain pending with that court.

JUDGMENT accordingly.