HARPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is filed by the Petitioner under Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 815/2006 lodged under Section 302 IPC registered with PS S.P. Badli.

(2.) THE basis of the FIR is DD 24 -A which was registered on 26.9.2006, at PS SP Badli recording that a murder had taken placed near Haryana Glass House, Swarup Nagar. The said DD was handed over to the IO who reached the spot and found there, a dead body of a sikh gentleman, later on identified as Parminder Singh. The said body bore deep injuries on it and nearby lay one pistol in a cocked position, three live cartridges and one iron hammer. The informant, one Sh. Gurdeep Singh was present at the site. He confessed his crime before the police and stated that he had a quarrel with the deceased, Parminder Singh and during the quarrel he gave a number of blows on his face and head which resulted in his death. After the aforesaid FIR was lodged, investigation was started. In the course of the investigation, it was revealed that on 8.7.2006, the wife of the accused, Smt. Parvinder Kaur had left with her children for Punjab on 8.7.2006 and did not return. She was constantly in touch with the deceased on mobile phone and personally. Investigations further revealed that the accused was last seen with the deceased and the call details of four mobile phones of both accused and the deceased corroborated the same.

(3.) COUNSEL for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of the testimony of the wife of the accused, Smt. Parvinder Kaur(PW -17), which is patently false and unreliable. He submitted that the deceased was the former driver of the Petitioner's father and used to live in Gurudwara Hargobindsar earlier, but had left the same in the year 2004. He further stated that Smt. Parvinder Kaur also worked with the father of the Petitioner in the said Gurudwara as a sewadar upto the year 2004, but thereafter, neither she nor the deceased came to the said Gurudwara. It is the case of the Petitioner that Smt. Parvinder Kaur was estranged from her husband and while all the three were living under the same roof, she had developed intimacy with the deceased, which was objected to by the accused who finally murdered him and confessed to committing the crime in his disclosure statement. He stated that Smt. Parvinder Kaur deserted the accused on 8.7.2006 and immediately thereafter, she filed a divorce petition against him. He drew the attention of this Court to the statement of Smt. Parvinder Kaur, recorded under Section 161 Code of Criminal Procedure, and marked as Ex.P -13, to point out that there is not a whisper in the said statement against the Petitioner or his father. It was further canvassed by the counsel for the Petitioner that the complaint addressed by Smt. Parvinder Kaur, PW -17 to various authorities three months after the date of the incident, was nothing but a part of a conspiracy to involve the Petitioner in a false case and though the said complaint was all along within the knowledge of the prosecution, no effort was made by it to carry out any investigations, till as recently as in May 2010, and then also the application filed under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure was solely on the basis of the testimony of Smt. Parvinder Kaur (PW -17), who, it is contended, has set up an entirely different story than the one she had originally, narrated to implicate the Petitioner and his father.