Mrs. Sukhwinder Kaur vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Sukhwinder Singh and Ujaggar Singh have brought their respective petitions for pre-arrest bail under the provisions of section. 438 Cr. P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No. 64 dated 25.3.2011 at Police Station Kotwali Nabha, Tehsil and District Patiala for an offence punishable u/s 304-B read with section 34 of Indian Penal Code.

The petitioners are husband and wife. The case, in brief, against them and their son Kulwinder Singh is that Kamaljit Singh, complainant married his daughter Shivdeep Kaur with Kulwinder Singh on 5.7.2009. She was harassed by the petitiones and their son in connection with the demand of dowry. A sum of Rs. 2,50,000/-had been deposited by the complainant in the account of Kulwinder Singh. Since December, 2010, Shivdeep Kaur along with her husband started residing with the complainant. Despite it, Kulwinder Singh as also the petitioners did not spare her and made a demand of Safari car and a sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs on Shivdeep Kaur. On 23.2.2011, Kulwinder Singh left the house of the complainant on the pretext of attending the marriage of his friend. He had been putting on golden karra, gold chain and a gold ring when he left the house and when he returned, he was not having these ornaments. On Shivdeep Kaur asking him about those ornaments, they entered into a hot arguments. On the next day, Ujjagar Singh and Sukhwinder Kaur along with their son came to the house of the complainant and started harassing Shivdeep Kaur for more dowry. They left the house in the evening. On telephone also, they used to threaten Shivdeep Kaur by saying that she could come to their house only if she brought a Safari car and a sum of Rs. 8.00 lacs. The complainant had claimed that under pressure, Shivdeep Kaur took some poisonous material on 23.3.2011. She was taken to Columbia Asia Hospital where she died on 23.5.2011 at 1.00 AM.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the deceased was at her parental home when she committed suicide. According to him, as per the prosecution version, the petitioners met her lastly on 24.2.2011 and not thereafter. According to him, the allegation of the petitioners making calls upon her is vague as no date of making such call has been given. He has further submitted that there is no such call record to prove this allegation. He has submitted that the complainant has falsely given the date of 23.3.2011 as the date for Shivdeep Kaur consuming some poisonous material. According to him, the hospital record shows that she was taken to Columbia Asia Hospital for treatment after taking some poisonous material on 22.3.2011. He has further submitted that though the police had been making applications to the In charge doctor at the hospital for his opinion about the fitness of Shivdeep Kaur to make statement and that she was declared unfit to make statement on 22.3.2011 and 23.2.2011 as per Annexure P4 and P5, yet during all this time, the complainant was there with the police and the police did not record his statement. He has further submitted that there is, thus, delay of three days in lodging the FIR. According to him, the petitioners were found innocent by the investigating agency and that they have now been summoned under the provisions of section 319 Cr. P.C. to face trial. It is submitted that Kulwinder Singh is still in custody in this case.

Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand, that there are serious allegations against the petitioners. According to him, the petitioners started making demands of dowry upon the deceased from the very beginning. According to him, the petitioners have made a demand upon the deceased on 24.2.2011 and this demand was made by the petitioners as well as their son. According to him, the harassment continued till Shivdeep Kaur committed suicide. He has further submitted that even after 24.2.2011, the petitioners kept on making demand on telephone. It is also submitted that a sum of Rs. 2.50 lacs was deposited in the account of the husband of the deceased.

There is nothing on record to show as to on which date, this amount of Rs. 2,50,000/-was deposited by the complainant in the account of his son-in-law. As per the order in which the allegations appear in the FIR, this deposit must have been made earlier to December, 2010 when Shivdeep Kaur is said by the complainant to have shifted to her parental home along with her husband. The other fact to be kept in consideration is that Shivdeep Kaur was not residing at her matrimonial home when she committed suicide by taking poisonous material. She was living at her parental home where she was not expected to take this step without telling her father. It is not the case of the prosecution that she told her father anything before taking the poisonous material. The petitioners were not there with the deceased from 24.2.2011 when they are said to have lastly visited her.

Keeping in view the fact that the investigating agency found the petitioners to be innocent and that the petitioners have been summoned to stand trial along with Kulwinder Singh vide the order made under the provisions of section 319 Cr.P.C., the concern of the court, at this stage, would be that the petitioners face trial and receive sentence, if they are found guilty at the trial.

In these circumstance, the petitioners deserve the concession of bail during the trial. The petitions are, consequently, allowed. The petitioners are directed to appear before the trial court within a period of two weeks from today upon which they shall be admitted to bail by learned trial court on their furnishing a personal bond each in a sum of Rs. 25,000/-with one surety each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.