IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
HARKESH MANUJA, J.
Santosh Rani – Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab – Respondent
CRM-M-8433 of 2024
Decided On : 28-02-2024
JUDGMENT
Harkesh Manuja, J.
By way of present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C., prayer has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.199 dated 19.07.2020, registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Lambi, District Sri Mukatsar Sahib, wherein the following allegations have been made:-
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is an old lady of 70 years of age with no involvement in the incident in question. He also points out that from the investigation already carried out, no offence is made out against the petitioner as there are no marks relating to force/injury on the body of the deceased as per the post-mortem report. He also points out that the alleged incident took place on 10.07.2020, whereas, the victim died on 18.07.2020 while under treatment, however, during this period, she never got recorded her statement implicating anyone being responsible for the incident.
3. On the other hand, learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner while submitting that the petitioner being the mother-in-law was actively involved in the incident in question having forcibly administered poison to the deceased, which was even found as per the chemical examiner report and thus, considering the nature of offence and the allegations levelled against her, she does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.
5. Admittedly, the incident in question was took place on 10.07.2020, whereas the deceased remained under treatment till 18.07.2020, however, as per the prosecution, she never got her statement recorded implicating any of the accused including the petitioner and it was only after her death on 18.07.2020, the FIR in question was registered at the instance of brother of the deceased on 19.07.2020, who even did not make any such effort during 10.07.2020 to 18.07.2020.
6. As per the allegations levelled in the FIR, the deceased was forcibly made to consume some poisonous substance whereas the post-mortem of the deceased no where reconciles the aforesaid allegations; there being no use of force/injury on the body of the deceased being reflected from the post-mortem. Moreover, the complainant even appeared as PW-1 and in his cross-examination, he went on to say that the deceased was got admitted in the hospital by her husband only and PW-1 never paid any expenses of medical treatment, which means that the medical expenses was borne by the husband of the deceased or the family members. The relevant extract from the cross-examination of PW-1- complainant is reproduced hereunder:-
Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of evidence against the elderly petitioner and absence of necessity for custodial interrogation.
Anticipatory bail can be granted when there are insufficient specific allegations connecting the petitioner to the abetment of suicide, and if custodial interrogation is not required.
Serious allegations in a dying declaration can influence the court's decision on anticipatory bail.
The court grants anticipatory bail based on insufficient grounds for arrest and allegations against non-petitioners.
The court permits anticipatory bail based on the ambiguous nature of accusations and clean antecedents of petitioners.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.