Mulakh Raj vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

If bail is the rule, jail is also an exception. When the latter would prevail over the former, has been left open to the law Courts which are supposed to act on judicial principle, by taking the benefit of its judicial experience. The gravity and seriousness of the offence is one of the primary considerations to which weightage has always been given by the law Courts. The second recognised principle of law is that the public faith may not be shaken in the judicial process by allowing the persons to move freely in our society who are charged with serious allegations. The larger interest of the State is yet another criteria to be kept in mind to decline the bail application. Though this Court is also duty bound to weigh other facts such as, that the accused may not flee from justice; that there are chances of tampering with the evidence which may be collected by the investigating officer, whether the accused is in judicial lock up or not, whether there are chances of early conclusion of the trial. These guidelines are not exhaustive but illustrative. The present bail application would be decided by this Court in the light of above guidelines.

Mulakh Raj is the fatherinlaw of deceased Darshana Rani. The FIR in this case was registered on the basis of the statement of Sada Lal, brother of deceased Darshana Rani, who had categorically alleged in the FIR that on the date of incident he along with Tarsem Lal, Sarpanch of his village went to the house of Darshana Rani on a scooter. At about 8 P.M. he saw the present petitioner, his daughter Suman and Des Raj standing in the courtyard. The complainant asked from them regarding his sister Darshana Rani. Suddenly he heard a voice of cry coming from a room. Electric bulb was on. The complainant further alleges that he saw a slight smoke from the ventilator and became suspicious. Thereafter, he along with the witness Tarsem Lal went inside the room where he saw his sister Darshana Rani was crying due to fire and was saying that Des Raj, Suman and Mulakh Raj petitioner had put her on fire. It is the further case of the prosecution that the deceased Darshana Rani was burnt in a moment and fell down on a cot. There was smell of kerosene oil. The motive for the occurrence according to complainant is in adequate dowry allegedly brought by Darshana Rani and this act of burning had been done by Mulakh Raj, Des Raj and Suman at the behest and instigation of Asha Rani, her husband Ashok Kumar and Baldev Raj son of Mulakh Raj.

I have heard Mr. M.S. Rai, Advocate, for the petitioner and Mr. J.S. Brar, DAG, Punjab, who appeared on behalf of the State of Punjab.

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the presence of the complainant and Tarsem Lal Sarpanch was a doubtful affair as their presence at the place of occurrence appears to be per chance and that both the witnesses did not try to save the deceased and in these circumstances the conduct of the complainant and the eye witness is improbable. Thirdly it was argued that no specific allegations have been attributed to the petitioner and it was lastly submitted that the petitioner, the fatherinlaw of the deceased is an old man of 70 years, therefore bail should be granted to him. Bail to the petitioner has been opposed by the learned DAG, Punjab on the ground of seriousness of the offence and it has also been stated by the learned DAG that it is a case of dowry death which must be viewed very seriously by the law Courts.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is not a fit case for bail. I have stated above that bail of course is a rule but there are also a recognised exception and proviso to the general rule. At this stage the Court is to be guided by the allegations of the complainant who was none but the brother of the deceased. The allegations in the FIR suggest that it was natural on the part of the prosecution witness like the complainant that he would take the assistance of respectable persons and would go to the house of his sister in order to enquire her welfare. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the visit of the complainant and Tarsem Lal was a chance of the house of the deceased. When the deceased had burnt completely within moments this Court can see the gravity of the fire and in these circumstances, it is too much to expect from the prosecution witnesses to intervene in order to save the deceased. It is the case of the prosecution that at the time of the alleged occurrence only three persons including the petitioner were present. In these circumstances, a specific role cannot be supposed to be attributed to the petitioner. The petitioner is fatherinlaw of the deceased. He is the head of the family. He is expected to know what is happening in the family. Old age per se is no ground to allow bail. Now a days, the bride burning cases are at large and the motive for these crimes is nothing but greed of dowry. I have already stated above that the bail is not a matter of course. It is a matter of discretion, which have to be exercised according to the judicial norms. Keeping in view the trend which is now going on and laid down by the Hon''ble Supreme Court, the dowry deaths have to be viewed with seriousness. The confidence of the Society cannot be allowed to be shaken in the law courts.

The petition is totally devoid of any merit. The same is hereby dismissed with the directions to the Registry to circulate the copies of this order to all the District and Sessions Judges, in the State of Punjab and Haryana and Union Territory, Chandigarh, for guidelines.