SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(P&H) 914

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

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. B.S. Seemar, Advocate; For the Petitioner
For the Respondent: Mr. Kewal Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Anticipatory bail granted due to lack of evidence against the elderly petitioner and absence of necessity for custodial interrogation.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 438 - Anticipatory bail - Petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner, an elderly woman, in a case of alleged poisoning resulting in death - The court found no evidence of force or injury on the deceased as per the post-mortem report, and the FIR was registered only after the victim's death - The court emphasized that the petitioner’s custodial interrogation was not necessary given her age and the completion of the investigation. (Paras 2, 5, 8)

(B) Anticipatory Bail - The court noted that the petitioner, being 70 years old, and with other co-accused granted bail, does not warrant custodial interrogation at this stage. (Paras 8, 9)

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:-

    "I had my youngest sister Beant Kaur who had got married with her own consent with Prem Kumar son of Nand Ram resident of Tarmala of our village itself about 1 year ago. My sister Beant Kaur was living with her husband and in-laws family at our village Tarmala itself. Her husband Prem Kumar and in-laws family used to beat and harass her. The entire self-happening of which was told by Beant Kaur to her uncle Major Singh who resides in village Tarmala. On 18.7.2020 at about 9.00 my uncle Major Singh informed me on phone that your sister Beant Kaur who was admitted in hospital since the last few days; her condition is serious, so you reach to the hospital. Upon which, after reaching Tarmala, I enquired through my uncle then I came to know that on 10.7.2020 Prem Kumar son of Nand Ram alias Bhola (husband), Nand Ram alias Bhola (father in law), mother in law and brother Vijay Sagar residents of village Tarmala; the in-laws by scaring and threatening my sister Beant Kaur have forcibly given some poisonous substance to her. During the treatment my sister Beant Kaur has died in the night on 18.07.2020 at about 8:00 p.m."

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:-

    ".....I came to know on my arrival at village Tarmala that on 10.07.2020, Beant K

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top