SUMANJIT KAUR BAJWA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shrimati Sumanjit Kaur Bajwa, petitioner has come to this Court in Criminal Miscellaneous u/s 482, Cr. P.c. seeking a direction for her release in case of arrest in case F.I.R. No. 143 dated 6.11.1991 u/s 302, read with section 34 of the I.P.C., registered at Police Station No.6, Jalandhar, on the statement of Gurprit Singh.

(2.) Briefly, stated, the facts narrated in the F.I.R., are to the effect that Gurprit Singh, complainant and Jagbir Singh (deceased) were present at the house of Gurmail Singh in connection with some celebration. A telephonic call was received at the house of Gurmail Singh, resident of Khizropur, who after attending the same, handed over the receiver to Jagbir Singh, informing him that it was meant for him and that the petitioner wanted to talk to him. Having heard the telephone call, Jagbir Singh disclosed thin the petitioner had sent for him. Thereupon, both Gurprit Singh and Jagbir Singh obtained the per mission of Gurmail Singh and proceeded towards the house of the petitioner, situated at Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar, Jalandhar. They reached there at about 12.30 a.m. on Hero Honda Motor Cycle. They found the petitioner, standing on the gate which she opened an seeing them. Jagbir Singh, accompanied by the petitioner, went upstairs to the Chobara while Gurprit Singh followed them. They found one Sarvjit Singh son of Tarsem Singh, resident of Ladowali Road, Jalandhar, sitting on the bed. While talking, Jagbir Singh and the petitioner started a verbal duel. Jagbir Singh asked the petitioner as to why she was insulting him after inviting him to her house. However, she took him into her grip. Sarvjit Singh rose from the bed on which he was sitting and gave repeated blows to him in the abdomen with a Kirpan, which he had taken out from the Gatra. The petitioner had made remarks that Jagbir Singh was not to be spared, as he had not married her after having given a word in that regard. Gurprit Singh raised an alarm, asking Sarvjit Singh to spare Jagbir Singh, but Sarvjit Singh gave further blows over the back. Thereupon, both, the petitioner and Sarvjit Singh ran away.

(3.) A direction was issued on the last date, requiring the petitioner to report to SI Madan Lal and join investigation. It is stated at the bar that when the petitioner was produced before the learned Magistrate, she refused to give her specimen handwriting. The Investigating Agency had taken into possession two letters and a birthday greeting card, alleged to have been sent by the petitioner to Jagbir Singh, prima facie there is nothing to rebut that these letters were in the handwriting of the petitioner. In one of the letters, she had complained against the previous conduct of Jagbir Singh and on his failures. At another place, she had added that he was a coward and could never succeed. She had also written that her father had correctly guided her not to love him (Jagbir Singh), but still she had loved him. Persons like him should be finished. In the second letter, there was an invitation to Jagbir Singh to the petitioners house at 11 a.m. A signal had also been described that would indicate if her father was at home or not, as her father was supposed to visit some place. It is the case of the prosecution that although Jagbir Singh did not visit the petitioner after this invitation was received, yet he did visit when a telephone call was received. On the face of it, the facts of the case disclose a trap laid by the petitioner about inviting Jagbir Singh who no longer appeared to extend love to her and with the help of Sarvjit Singh (who has not been shown to be a close relative of the petitioner), he was got murdered. No special ground are made out, justifying the grant of concession of anticipatory bail If/S 438, Cr. P.C. In the result, this criminal miscellaneous is here by dismissed. Petition dismissed.