IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the welfare of women and the right to a speedy trial are critical factors in bail considerations, especially in cases involving serious allegations.

JUDGMENT :

Sumeet Goel, J.

CRM-34247-2024

Application is allowed, subject to all just exceptions. Annexure P-6 to P-8 are taken on record.

CRM-M-39356-2024 (O&M)

1. The instant petition has been filed on 07.08.2024 under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 1973 for grant of regular bail.

As per the judgment rendered by this Court titled Abhishek Jain Vs. State of U.T. Chandigarh and another, 2024 PHHC 085784 [(CRM-M-31808-2024] the instant petition is not maintainable under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. 1973. However, keeping in view the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case especially that the instant petition pertains to regular bail, the instant petition is directed to be considered as a petition under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.

Present petition has been filed for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No. 224 dated 05.12.2021, registered for the offences punishable under Section 304-B of IPC (added later on & Section 302 IPC deleted), 34 IPC at Police Station Ding, District Sirsa, Haryana.

2. The case set up in the FIR in question (as set out by the petitioner in the present petition) is as follows:

“Statement of Pamma Ram son of Shama Ram, R/o Pathrala, Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda, aged about 45 years, Mobile No. 9872718429. Stated that I am resident of aforesaid address and labourer by profession, I have four children, three daughters and a son, the eldest is Laxmi younger to her Rajni and the youngest daughter is Rekha and the youngest is son Krishan Ram, my daughter Laxmi and Rajni are married. I have performed the marriage of my daughter Rajni, aged 22 years, with Sandeep son of Jangir Singh, resident of Narelkhera on 20.09.2020. That after marriage, my daughter Rajni has given birth to a son, who is aged about 5 months, that after marriage, Sandeep, husband of my daughter and father-in-law Jangir Singh and mother-in-law Pallo Bai, used to quarrel and torture. That on dated 05.12.2021 at about 11 o’clock in the day, I received a phone call on my phone from my daughter Rajni that ‘Papa come and take me’, that her husband Sandeep, father-in-law Jangir Singh, mother-in-law Pallo Bai harassed her’. Thereafter my daughter had disconnected the phone. That after about 15 minutes, I received the phone call from Jangýr Singh, father-in law of my daughter Rajni that Rajni has suffered attack. You come immediately. That on this information, I and my wife Karamjit and other family members reached in the house of my daughter Rajni in Village Narelkhera, then saw that dead body of my daughter Rajni was lying on the ground. That I and my family members has seen minutely and found that bluish mark was present on the neck of my daughter Rajni. That I have full suspicion that my daughter Rajni has been killed jointly by throttling by my son-in-law Sandeep and Jangir Singh, father-in- law of Rajni, mother-in-law Pallo Devi and Abhey Singh. That strict action be taken against my son-in-law Sandeep, Jangir Singh, mother-in-law Pallo Devi and Abhey Singh, residents of Narelkhera and I be given justice. That I have recorded my statement, heard, same is correct. LTI/Pamma Ram, Karamjit Ram, signed in Punjabi.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is in custody since 14.02.2022. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a lady aged about 48 years. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the offence under Section 304-B of IPC is not made out against the present petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the marriage between the deceased and co-accused, namely, Sandeep took place on 20.09.2020 and no complaint whatsoever was ever made by the family of the victim regarding any dowry harassment etc. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the prosecution has cited 21 witnesses in the challan out of which only 3 have been examined till date. Learned counsel for the peti