Bimal Kaur vs State of Punjab

M.M. Punchhi, J. (Oral)

This is a petition for anticipatory bail by the Bimal Kaur. She is accused of an offence under section 302/34, Indian Penal Code.

Normally when the offence is of such a nature the Court would be cherry in granting anticipatory bail as that step might hamper the investigation, but here, as would be apparent from the fact mentioned hereafter, a case for anticipatory bail has been made out.

The petitioner is the wife of Prem Singh coaccused. Prem Singh and his two brothers, namely, Amarjit Singh coaccused and Ranjit Singh live in the same house in village Mehma, District Patiala, Amarjit Singh was married to Surinder Kaur deceased. Her marriage was in doldrums. Finally on October 27, 1985, she died an unnatural death. The case of the prosecution is that she was put to death. The case of the defence, on the other hand is that it was natural death. The case of the defence alternatively is that it was perhaps a case of suicide.

The crucial point in the case is whether there are circumstances on the investigated material from which the Court may reasonable come to the view that the petitioner was a participant in the commission of the crime of murder. It is true that Surinder Kaur''s corpse was recovered from the joint house of the three above named brothers in which the petitioner was living inmate. It is equally true that the investigation has collected evidence of neighbors who heard the deceased shriek in pain or terror sometimes before her death. Yet the investigation has not been able to collect any evidence of any person having seen the actual commission of the crime. The sole evidence pointing a finger at the petitioner is of an extrajudicial confession made on 10.11.85 by Amarjit Singh coaccused before Ex Sarpanch Bagicha Singh and Sarpanch Bharpur Singh of village Bhangar, suggesting that the petitioner was a coparticipant in the crime.

It was asserted on behalf of the petitioner that this Bharpur Singh was closely related to the parental family of Surinder Kaur. An affidavit to that effect was filed wherefrom it is evident that Bharpur Singh''s sister''s daughter are Mohinder Kaur and Nasib Kaur, who are respectively married to two brothers by the names of Niranjan Singh and Gurnam Singh. Deceased Surinder Kaur was the daughter of Hakam Singh who is the third brother of Niranjan Singh and Gurnam Singh. Bharpur Singh on the other hand has given a counter affidavit that he is not related to the parents of Surinder Kaur. Obviously he is not, but his connection with the family is not ruled out. Without stretching the matter any further on this aspect of the case, it is apparent that even in the extra judicial confession made by Amrjit Singh to Bharpur Singh, the role assigned to the petitioner is that she caught one of the legs of the deceased at the time of the commission of the offence. This part by itself is not conclusive that her holding of the leg of the deceased was in conscious furtherance of the common intention to commit her murder. Besides, it is merely a confession of a coaccused and strangely enough made to a person connected with the parental family of the deceased.

Additionally, the law is lenient towards women in the matter of bail. The petitioner is stated to be having four children, two of whom are females aged 12 and 8 years respectively, and two are males, aged 61/2 and 31/2 years respectively. If she were to be sent in, these children would have to opt either to follow her in jail or to stay out with other people and possibly unwilling relatives. It is the conceded position that Amarjit Singh and Prem Singh her husband have been arrested in the case and are not on bail.

The totality of circumstances thus inevitably leads to the conclusion that no useful purpose would be served in sending the petitioner behind bars, merely because she has to stand trial in a murder case. Accordingly the aforesaid circumstances are held to be by themselves sufficient and good for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Resultantly this petition is allowed. The officer arresting the petitioner is required to release her on bail to his satisfaction. The petitioner is directed to make herself available for investigation as and when required by the investigation.

Nothing said or observed in this petition shall ever cause any reflection on the merits of the case at the eventually trial.