Hatish Kumar vs State of Punjab

Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.—This order shall dispose of the present petition filed u/s 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 62 dated 11.4.2014, u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code (originally registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code) at Police Station City Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

Initially, FIR was registered under Sections 304-B/34 of the Indian Penal Code on the statement of Brij Bhushan Goyal on the allegations that marriage of his daughter Shweta had been solemnized with Sahil Singla and out of such wedlock, a male child had been born. Allegations were that husband, Sahil Singla, father-in-law Ashok Kumar Singla and mother-in-law Kusum Singla had been harassing the daughter of the complainant with regard to demand of dowry and she had been pushed from the roof of her house which resulted in her death. It so transpires that during the course of investigation, an application to discharge the accused was submitted by the investigating agency. The present petitioner, on the other hand, is sought to be implicated by citing offence u/s 306 of the Indian Penal Code on the basis that during the course of investigation, the mobile phone of deceased Shweta Singla as also the laptop that she had been using had been examined and it had come to light that a number of phone calls and messages had been exchanged between deceased as also the present petitioner and which, in turn, shed light on the possibility of illicit relations between deceased Shweta Singla and the present petitioner.

Learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the present petition seeking anticipatory bail by contending that during the course of investigation, it had been found that on the intervening night of 10/11.4.2014, a number of messages had been exchanged between mobile No. 98550-84493 i.e. of Shweta Singla and mobile No. 84372-03277 which was in the name of Gaurav Goyal, brother of Shweta Singla but was actually being used by the present petitioner, namely, Hitesh Kumar Jindal. Learned State counsel, during the course of hearing, has referred to the transcript of such messages i.e. 39 SMS since 3.30 p.m. from mobile number of Shweta Singla to the present petitioner and likewise, 70 messages and 26 outgoing calls from Hitesh to Shweta Singla. As per such messages, the present petitioner was allegedly pressurizing and coercing deceased Shweta Singla to disclose to her husband Sahil Singla as regards their relationships. State counsel would further apprise the Court that during the course of investigation, even the laptop of deceased Shweta Singla had been examined by the State Cyber Laboratory, Mohali and after opening a certain folder some photographs were retrieved which showed deceased Shweta Singla and the present petitioner in a compromising position.

The present petitioner is otherwise stated to be the brother-in-law (Sala) of the brother of the deceased. On a specific query having been put by this Court to the State counsel as regards on what basis it was being concluded that mobile No. 84372-03277 was being used by the present petitioner and which otherwise was in the name of Gaurav Goyal i.e. brother of deceased Shweta Singla, State counsel would respond that the factum of the present petitioner using such mobile phone number had been confirmed from the cell tower location.

In the light of such peculiar facts and circumstances and in the light of the serious allegations, there would be desirability of even examining certain electronic devices in the nature of laptop that may be in the possession of the present petitioner. Such exercise may even warrant custodial interrogation of the petitioner. This may also be necessary to ensure that the petitioner is prevented from making an attempt to tamper with the relevant evidence that as of now may be under his control and possession.

In the light of the observations recorded above, this Court does not find any basis that would warrant interference in the order dated 6.5.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana declining the application of the petitioner for anticipatory bail.

Present petition is, accordingly, dismissed.