Gurpal Singh vs State of Punjab

M.L. Singhal, J.

These are Criminal Misc. Nos. 1551M of 1999, 45M of 1999 and 27035M of 1998, whereby Gurpal Singh son of Wassan Singh, Charan Kaur widow of Wassan Singh and Baljinder Kaur wife of Gurpal Singh have claimed anticipatory bail in a complaint case titled Kashmir Singh v. Gurpal Singh and others under sections 302/34 IPC pending in the Court of SubDivisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala.

Through this order, which will be common to all these Criminal Misc. petitions, I would dispose of all these Criminal Misc Petitions.

Facts stated by Kashmir Singh in complaint titled Kashmir Singh v. Gurpal Singh and others under Sections 302/34 IPC of P.S. Lopoke, suggest that there was one Smt. Charno. She was sister of Kashmir Singh. She sometimes resided with Kashmir Singh and sometimes with Gurpal Singh. Baljinder Kaur accused is wife of Gurpal Singh, while Charan Kaur accused is mother of Gurpal Singh. There is another brother of Charno named Joginder Singh. A few days prior to the death of Charno she told her brother Joginder Singh that Gurpal Singh had got Will executed from her by playing fraud and by using force relating to her share and had also snatched her 25 tolas of gold ornaments and FDRs of Rs. 46000/ which was jointly in the name of Charno and Joginder Singh. Smt. Charno had told her brother Joginder Singh that since she had lodged protest with Gurpal Singh and his wife, they had threatened to liquidate her. It may be mentioned here that Gurpal Singh is the real nephew of Kashmir Singh and Charno, while Kashmir Singh and Charno are son and daughter of Apar Singh, Gurpal Singh is son of Wassan Singh s/o Apar Singh. On the night intervening 24/2511997 at about 11 P.M., Kashmir Singh heard Raula from the house of Gurpal Singh. Thereupon Kashmir Singh, Joginder Singh and his nephew Gurlal Singh rushed to the place of occurrence and saw that Baljinder Kaur and Charan Kaur had caught hold of Charno by her arms and Gurpal Singh had given stick blow on her head and on seeing Kashmir Singh, Joginder Singh and Gurlal Singh, they took Charno to the back room of their house and locked the door from inside. She was crying to save her from the clutches of the accused but the door was never opened by the accused. In the morning of 25.1.1997, Kashmir Singh alongwith Joginder Singh and Gurlal Singh approached the police of P.S. Lopoke. Police came to the spot and found Charno dead in the house of Gurpal Singh. Police sent the dead body for post mortem examination. Police recorded the statements of Kashmir Singh etc. No case was registered by the police, although the police kept assuring Kashmir Singh that they would register the case and the investigation is going on.

Learned counsel for the petitioneraccused submitted that the version of the complaint is highly delayed. According to version of the complaint murder of Charno daughter of Apar Singh took place on the night intervening 24/251 1997. Version that Charno was done to death by the petitionersaccused saw the light of the day after 9 months. Learned counsel for the petitioners accused submitted that version of the complaint is bereft of naturalness and spontaneity. It was also submitted that Smt. Charno was an old woman of 80. She died natural death and that was why nobody was challaned. Investigation was made by the police and 100''s of people appeared during investigation and stated that Charno died due to old age. She fell down in the house and died. It was submitted that Kashmir Singh had a motive to implicate Gurpal Singh etc. falsely as Charno had executed a Will in favour of Gurpal Singh to the exclusion of Kashmir Singh and Joginder Singh. It was submitted that Gurpal Singh and Charno had filed suit against Gurlal Singh s/o Joginder Singh and Kashmir Singh son of Apar Singh for declaration that they are owners in possession of land measuring 52 kanals 17 marlas at village Lopoke and sale deed dated 21.2.1994 qua land measuring 35 Kanals 9 Marla was illegal, null and void and without consideration and had not been executed by them and that suit was decreed. Learned Counsel for the petitionersaccused submitted that there was litigation between them. Kashmir Singh was putting pressure upon Gurpal Singh and Charno to withdraw that suit and when they did not agree to withdraw that suit, he filed that complaint against them and Baljinder Kaur falsely.

Sh. Vikram Chaudhary, learned Counsel for Kashmir Singh on the other hand submitted that Gurpal Singh etc. had definite motive to kill Smt. Charno. After getting Will from her, they apprehended that Charno might execute another Will and supersede that Will and that Will could hold the field if they kill her and they killed her.

Version of the complaint is highly delayed. During investigation, Gurpal Singh etc. were found innocent. I think anticipatory bail should be allowed to Gurpal Singh, Smt. Charan Kaur and Baljinder Kaur.

It is, therefore, ordered that on their appearance before the Magistrate, the Magistrate will admit them to bail and order them to furnish the necessary bail bonds. All these Criminal Misc. Petitions are accordingly allowed.