Gurmeet Kaur vs State Of Punjab

Sureshwar Thakur, J

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., seeking the indulgence of regular bail, to the petitioner.

In FIR bearing No. 122 of 1.6.2021, registered at Police Station Tanda, District Hoshiarpur, offences constituted under Sections 302, 323, 120-B of the IPC, are embodied.

In the instant petition, it is alleged that deceased Jasvir Kaur, daughter-in-law of the present petitioner, was allegedly murdered with the inter se connivance of the present petitioner, and, her son-Sukhwinder Singh. The fatal injuries, are alleged to be a sequel of beatings, as well as kick blows, becoming struck on the abdomen of deceased Jasvir Kaur.

In the petition FIR, though it is not narrated with explicit candour, that, at the relevant time or at the time of commission of the offences, the present petitioner was present at the crime site along with her son, but at the fag end of the FIR, it is echoed, that the beatings, and, kick blows struck on the abdomen of the deceased, rather by the principal offender, were a sequel of the present petitioner instigating, and, goading the principal accused, her son, to do so. If so, the incriminatory role, as may become assignable to the present petitioner may be that of a conspirator, and, even in that regard, cogent evidence was to surface, either comprised in best electronic evidence, or became comprised in, upon the informant-complainant stepping into the witness box, the latter in his examination-in-chief, attributing to the present petitioner, the prime role, of hers at the relevant time, being at the crime site along with her son.

However, in the petition FIR, the informant has not echoed qua his being an eye witness to the occurrence, and, also when upon his stepping into the witness box, he does not in his examination-in-chief, attribute any incriminatory participation to the present petitioner, in the petition crime, nor also when thereafter the public prosecutor concerned, chose to, with leave of the Court, declare him hostile, for thereafter his cross-examining him. Thereupon, the above fact of the present petitioner, prima facie, being a conspirator in the petition crime, does also become completely eclipsed.

Though, normally this Court would have refrained from analyzing the evidence, as has been adduced before the learned trial Judge concerned, as the analysis of the evidence adduced, before him, is the sole prerogative of the learned trial Judge concerned, moreso when, any analysis or appreciation of the evidence, as done by this Court, in bail petitions, would definitely work as a fait accompli, upon him, irrespective of the fact that this Court, in the conclusion, making a clarificatory mandate, that the observations, made in the bail petitions, would not prejudice the judicial mind of the learned trial Judge concerned, to independently evaluate the evidence adduced before him. However, since there is no cogent inculpation, drawn against the present petitioner, in the testification, as made by the informant, before the learned trial Judge concerned, rather when there is not even an iota of any incrimination qua any incriminatory participation of the present bail petitioner, in the petition crime. Therefore, the above non- ascriptions of incriminatory participation(s) of the present petitioner, in the petition crime, does not tantamount to any evaluation of the evidence as testified by the informant, before the learned trial Judge, rather in the wake of the above non-ascriptions of inculpations qua the petitioner, it is prima facie a case of no evidence against the petitioner.

In view of the above, and, also when, at this stage, no evidence has been adduced by the prosecution, suggestive of the fact, that in the event of the bail petitioner being enlarged on regular bail, there is every likelihood of hers fleeing from justice, and/or, tampering with prosecution evidence, thereupon, this Court does not deem it fit, and, appropriate to prolong the judicial incarceration of the petitioner any longer, as, thereupons her personal liberty would become unnecessarily fettered, and, curtailed.

Consequently, the instant petition is allowed, and, the petitioner-bail applicant is ordered to be released from judicial custody, if not required in any other case. However, the granting of bail to the bail applicant-petitioner, is subject to hers furnishing personal and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 50,000/- each, before the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned, and, also subject to hers not tampering with prosecution evidence, and, hers not influencing prosecution witnesses, and, besides also hers appearing before the trial Court concerned, as and when directed or required to make her personal appearance.

It is clarified that the afore observations are strictly meant only for the disposal of the present petition, and, shall not affect the merits of the trial arising from the FIR (supra).

Copy dasti.