JAGDEEP KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, Jagdeep Kaur, wife of Pritpal Singh, resident of Village Sarhala, District Hoshiarpur, who has been booked for having committed the offence punishable under Section 306, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 20, dated 21.2.2013, registered at Police Station, Amloh, District Fatehgarh Sahib.

(2.) Learned counsel contends that the petitioner, Jagdeep Kaur, is the married sister-in-law (Sali) of Jagroop Singh (since deceased); the marriage of the sister of the petitioner, namely, Kamalpreet Kaur, was solemnized with Jagroop Singh in the year 2001 and thereafter two children were born out of the said wedlock; Jagroop Singh started consuming liquor, therefore, he was frustrated from his life; the wife and other members of the family were asking Jagroop Singh not to consume liquor; at the time of death, Jagroop Singh had allegedly left behind a suicide note holding the petitioner and her co-accused, namely, Ujjagar Singh, Gurmeet Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur, responsible for his death; and that except the dying declaration, there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner with the offence of abetment to commit suicide. To elaborate his submissions, learned counsel has referred to the dying declaration wherein it has been mentioned that the petitioner along with her co-accused, namely, Ujjagar Singh, Gurmeet Kaur and Kamalpreet Kaur, were responsible for his death. He submits that from the material available on record, the ingredients of Section 306, IPC, are not attracted qua the petitioner. He also submits that after investigation the charge-sheet (report under Section 173, Cr.P.C.) has already been submitted against Ujjagar Singh, father of the petitioner, and perusal of the same reveals that one supplementary statement of the complainant, Harjinder Singh, was recorded on 28.4.2013 and the veracity of the same has to be tested during the course of trial. He further submits that the matrimonial house of the petitioner is in village Sarhala, District Hoshiarpur, which is at a far off place. Therefore, there was no interference by the petitioner in the day-to-day family affairs of Jagroop Singh and his wife, Kamalpreet Kaur. Lastly, learned counsel submits that in compliance of the order dated 22.5.2013, passed by this Court, the petitioner did join the investigation and fully cooperated with the investigating agency, therefore, she is no more required by the investigating agency.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Ved Parkash, submits that Jagroop Singh (since deceased) had left behind a suicide note holding the petitioner and her co- accused responsible for his death. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to anticipatory bail. He fairly concedes that except for the suicide note, there is no other incriminating evidence available on record connecting the petitioner with the alleged offence, though there is a statement of the daughter of the deceased, namely, Vishaldeep Kaur, which discloses that there were strained relations between Jagroop Singh (deceased) and Kamalpreet Kaur (wife). He has also read out the supplementary statement of the complainant, Harjinder Singh, which was recorded on 28.4.2013, wherein it was stated that the petitioner and her co-accused were responsible for the death of his (complainant) brother Jagroop Singh. However, he very fairly concedes that in compliance of the order dated 22.5.2013 passed by this Court, the petitioner has joined the investigation and no more required by the investigating agency for any other purpose.