Sukhwinder Kaur vs Jagtar Singh

K.S. Kumaran J.

F.I.R. No. 64 dated 2.10.1998 was registered at Police Station Bhogpur under Sections 302, 201, 120B of the Indian Penal Code on the statement of Sukhwinder Kaur (petitionerherein) wherein she has stated that on 25.8.1998 her husbandDaljit Singh had gone on his scooter to meet his sisters Sukhwinder Kaur wife of Kuldip Singh of village Bagrian and Baljit Kaur wife of Amrik Singh, resident of Kamrai, but did not come even on the next day. She also alleged that when they came to know that an unclaimed scooter was standing on the boundary of village Butran, her nephewKamaljit Singh and Master Gurbhej Singh went to that village, enquired and came to know that the scooter had been deposited with Police Station Bhogpur. She has further alleged that later on the same day, Kamaljit Singh and Master Gurbhej made a report about the missing of Daljit Singh, but till today no clue was found. She has also further alleged that she was sure that Jagtar Singh alise Jagga (firstrespondent herein), Gurdial Singh alias Dala and Surjit Singh have murdered Daljit Singh and had thrown the dead body on the boundary of village Buttran, since Daljit Singh (deceased) had protested against Jagtar Singh when he having teased his (Daljit Singh''s) daughterJatinder Kaur.

Therefore, Jagtar Singh firstrespondent herein filed an application for being released on bail before the Sessions Court, Jalandhar. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar, ordered the petitioner to be released on bail by his order dated 13.2.1999 (Annexure P1) taking note of the fact that the F.I.R. was registered only on 2.10.1998 after a gap of nearly a month and seven days for which there was no satisfactory explanation, that the authenticity of the alleged extra judicial confession dated 1.10.1998 would be scanned during the trial, the fact that in spite of direction the case diary was not produced on 16.11.1998 before the Illaqa Magistrate but was produced only on 17.11.1998 and also the fact that the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. did not make any reference to it. The learned Sessions Judge also took note of the fact that the coaccusedSurjit Singh had already been allowed bail. That is why the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancelling the bail granted to Jagtar Singh the firstrespondent.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides.

The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State is that the dead body of Daljit Singh, which was buried 6'' below the earth was recovered at the instance of Jagtar Singh pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him and the other accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which would indicate that only the accused could have known about the body being under the earth. They further contended that Jagtar Singh had also admitted in his extrajudicial confession that he has caused injuries on the head of the deceased with a kahhi. According to them the postmortem report also showed that there were incised injuries on the right side of the head, nose and cheeks, and as per the opinion of the Doctor death was due to the head injury.

The learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand contends that while the case of the prosecution is that Daljit Singh was missing from 25.8.1998, the complaint was given only on 2.10.1998 i.e. after a delay of more than a month. He also contends that there is no evidence to link the petitioner with the alleged crime except the alleged joint extra judicial confession made by the firstrespondent and his father and the recovery of the dead body. The learned Counsel for the firstrespondent also contends that there is no compelling reason to cancel the bail already granted to the firstrespondent. The learned Counsel for the respondent also relied upon the decision in 1997 Crl.L.J. 2098 (Mohan Singh v. State of Haryana).

I am also of the view that there are no grounds for cancelling the bail granted to the firstrespondent at this stage. The learned Sessions Judge, has taken note of the delay in lodging the F.I.R. for which there was no statisfactory explanation and also the fact that the alleged extrajudicial confession has to be examined at the time of the trial. Even this alleged extra judicial confession is stated to be a joint one made by the firstrespondent and his father. Whether this Court can rely upon their alleged joint extra judicial confession to convict the accused will be a vital question. Therefore, taking into consideration all the materials, the firstrespondent was granted bail by the learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar. Of course, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State contend that the dead body was recovered at the instance of the petitioner pursuant to the disclosure statement made by him, that the dead body was also buried deep under the earth i.e. 6'' below the earth, and the recovery would not have been possible but for the firstrespondent leading to such recovery. Of course, the learned Counsel for the petitioner and State also contend that the recovery of the dead body has also been Videotaped, but, it was admitted that the Videotape is not part of the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

In these circumstances, I am of the view that there are no grounds for cancelling the bail granted to the firstrespondent herein.

Accordingly, the petition fails and is dismissed.