Mukhtiar Singh vs State of Punjab

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, J.

The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in case FIR No.12 dated 20.2.2018 under Section 306/34, Police Station Dorangla, District Gurdaspur.

The FIR was registered on the statement of Dilbag Singh son of Khajan Singh. He stated that his elder daughter Amandeep Kaur was married about

13/14 years back with Mukhtiar Singh â€" petitioner. Out of the wedlock, two children, namely Ramandeep Singh aged about 12-13 years and

daughter Jasmeet Kaur aged about 8 years, were born. The petitioner (his son-in-law) had retired from the Army some months back. On 18.2.2018,

Mukhtiar Singh with his wife Amandeep Kaur and their children had visited the house of the complainant in connection with an Akhand Path.

Mukhtiar Singh in a drunken condition abused the complainant and his family members for not serving him liquor. The son of the complainant

Jaswant Singh escorted the petitioner, his wife and children to their house at Dorangala and returned after leaving them there. On 20.2.2018 at about

10.00 am Jaswant Singh again went there to return the I 20 car of the petitioner. The petitioner took the keys of the car, but did not ask him to come

inside the house. The complainant's daughter Amandeep Kaur was not present in the house then. At about 12 pm Jaswant Singh received a

telephonic call on his mobile that Amandeep Kaur had taken some medicine. The complainant and his wife went to Oberoi Hospital, Gurdaspur,

where, they came to know that their daughter Amandeep Kaur had died. It is further recorded in the FIR that the complainant's daughter had earlier

also complained that her sister-in-law Paramjit Kaur and her husband Lakhbir Singh had been harassing her. They wanted that the petitioner

Mukhtiar Singh be given a gold KARA on his retirement from the Army and some ornaments be given to the sister-in-law and her husband.

Because of this, the complainant's daughter had been under depression for the last 4 to 5 months. He stated that he suspected that his daughter had

committed suicide by taking some poisonous substance on account of the harassment suffered at the hands of her husband and sister-in-law and her

husband.

Ld. Counsel for the petitioner contended that the ingredients of the offence under Section 306 are not made out against the petitioner. There is no

allegation of abetment on the part of the petitioner.

It is not possible to accept the contention of the Ld. Counsel. The FIR discloses that the deceased suffered harassment at the hands of the petitioner.

There is no other explanation as to why she committed suicide just two days after visiting her father's place by consuming a poisonous substance.

The very fact that the petitioner did not disclose her whereabouts to her brother when he visited him also raises suspicion. The charge is serious. The

matter has yet to be investigated.

Accordingly, in my view, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of concession of anticipatory bail.

Dismissed.

It is made clear that nothing said hereinabove, shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the matter.