The main legal point established in the judgment is the consideration of medical opinions, debatable circumstances, and the petitioner's age and health condition in granting anticipatory bail.

JUDGMENT

Raj Mohan Singh, J. - The petitioner seeks grant of anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No.17 dated 14.03.2019 registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC at Police Station Hajipur, District Hoshiarpur.

2. The FIR was lodged by Jaswinder Singh with the allegations that on 13.03.2019 at about 7:30 PM, he came to the house from his shop. When he reached in front of his house, then his brother Manjit Singh was standing in front of his gate. Dev Raj, Mandeep Singh and Nirmala Devi @ Nirmal Kaur (petitioner) were also standing in front of their own house and were arguing with the brother of the complainant. In the meanwhile, all the three persons dragged the brother of the complainant and took him inside their house. When the complainant came forward to rescue his brother, then he saw that Mandeep Singh and Dev Raj caught hold hands of Manjit Singh and Nirmala Devi @ Nirmal Kaur (petitioner) was having spade in her hand. When the complainant and his wife Lakhwinder Kaur tried to step forward to get Manjit Singh freed, then accused had a scuffled with them. Petitioner caught Manjit Singh from his private parts and thereafter, the complainant party got Manjit Singh released from them. When they were taking Manjit Singh to their house, then Manjit Singh fell down in front of the gate of Dev Raj. On reaching home, Manjit Singh was found to be dead.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is an old lady of 63 years of age and keeping in-different health. As per postmortem report, following injuries were found on the person of the deceased:-

"1. Bluish contusion 5cm x 4 cm present over the scrotal area. On dissection bluish colored hematoma present over whole of scrotum. On cut section of the testicular wall, about 28 ML of blood oozes out.

2. Seminal fluid present over the penis."

4. The cause of death was kept in abeyance till receipt of chemical examiner's report. According to chemical examiner's report dated 11.06.2019, no poison was detected in viscera of the deceased.

5. Learned counsel further submitted that no histopathological report was sought by the prosecution. Challan has already been filed qua husband and son of the petitioner and they have been granted regular bail by the High Court. Petitioner has not been proceeded against in terms of Sections 82 and 83 Cr.P.C so far. Prior to lockdown, arrest warrants of the petitioner were issued. During lockdown, no proclamation has been done so far. Now the petitioner is at the verge of being declared as proclaimed offender. As per medical opinion, injury No.1 has led to vasovagal shock, which is sufficient to cause death in normal course of nature.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that vasovagal shock may be due to trigger and distress. Petitioner did not use spade, even if, she was shown to be duly armed with it. It was quite unnatural that the petitioner being 63 years of age would catch hold private parts of the deceased in front of his husband and son. In the postmortem report, the cause of death was to be given after the receipt of chemical examiner's report. In the beginning, it was not the case of the prosecution that the injury in question in the absence of any such external injury, had anything to do with the death of the deceased. Postmortem was conducted after a delay of 40 hours from the time of occurrence. The cause of death would remain debatable as the postmortem report was dependent upon the receipt of chemical examiner's report and no poison was detected in the contents of the organs sent for analysis. After the receipt of chemical examiner's report dated 11.06.2019, the cause of death in the instant case could not be ascertained. There was no other injury on the person of the deceased and Investigating Agency did not even call for histopathological report despite the fact that neither the postmortem report, nor the chemical examiner's report gave such an opinion with regard to cause of death. The Investigating Agency did not get bio