Sher Singh vs Baljit Singh and Another

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—On September 21, 1991 case FIR No. 68 was registered at Police Station Sardhulgarh, u/s 304B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against Baljit Singh respondent and another on the statement of Sher Singh father of Pauljeet Kaur deceased. As per allegations in the First Information Report, Pauljeet Kaur was married to Baljit Singh about 7 months before the occurrence and Sher Singh gave enough dowry to her Baljit Singh was not satisfied with the dowry and both he and his sister Virpal Kaur harassed Pauljeet Kaur and coerced her to bring a motorcycle. Being fed up with the conduct of her husband and his sister, Pauljeet Kaur consumed poison and died.

Baljit Singh husband of the deceased moved an application for grant of bail. He was released on bail by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhalinda vide his order dated November 7, 1991 on his furnishing a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20.000/.- with one surety in the like amount. Sher Singh complainant ''has now filed this application u/s 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order granting bail to Baljit Singb.

It was alleged in the application that marriage of the deceased had taken place only seven months prior to her death and there was dispute regarding dowry particularly about a motorcycle. The deceased was treated in a cruel manner because of demand of dowry and she finished her life because she was subjected to cruelty and harassment.

In the return filed by Baljit Singb, it was pleaded that there was no dispute about the dowry and the deceased was never asked to bring any articles of dowry or Motorcycle. He already owned a Bajaj Super scooter which was registered in his name bearing Registration No. P-03A/1825. The deceased was never subjected to cruelty or harassment.

I have heard Mr. J.S. Toor, Counsel for the applicant and Mr. G.S. Doad, counsel for the respondent.

In the instant case the allegations in the First Information Report were that the deceased was harassed by her husband and his sister for not bringing adequate dowry and she was coerced to bring a motorcycle. This cruel treatment meted out to (he deceased at the hands of her husband led her to end her life by taking poison. The Trial Court found that there was no allegation that poison was administered to Pauljeet Kaur by some one and since trial of the case was to take time no useful purpose was to be served by keeping (he respondent in jail. The Trial Court exerciser its discretion in a proper manner keeping in view the circumstances of the case. The power to grant or to refuse bail is not to be exercised by way of punishment before trial arid only material considerations for the court are (1) whether the accused would be readily available and (2) whether he is likely to misuse the concession of bail by tampering with the evidence. Once an accused is enlarged on bail and the Trial Court had exercised discretion in a proper manner then the power to take back the accused in custody is to be exercised with case and circumspection and only if it is clear that the accused is interfering with .the course of justice by tampering with witnesses. There are no averments in the application that the accused Baljit Singh has abused the liberty of bail or (hat he ever tried to tamper with the evidence. As the accused has not tried to misuse the privilege of bail no case for cancellation of bail is made out. The application is therefore, dismissed.