MANJINDER KAUR ALIAS BHOLI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner in this case is a woman aged 29 and presently serving in Health Department, Govt. of Punjab. The contents of the FIR indicate that there was some tension between the family of two sides on the issue of ill treatment by in-laws to the daughter-in-law. At this stage it is not necessary to go into the details of those issues. The incident in this case took place on 7.7.1995. On that day complainant Amrik Singh, witness Anup Singh and the deceased Mohinder Singh and Baljit Singh had been to the house of the accused, including the petitioner with a view to settle the issue regarding ill treatment to the daughter of Amrik Singh. It appears that the matrimonial dispute was to be sorted out. In the course of that temper seems to have risen high and ultimately it resulted into firing by gun. Allegedly, accused Rachhpal Singh fired at Mohinder Singh and killed him. The other deceased Baljit Singh was trying to run away. It is alleged that Bholi alias Manjinder Kaur (present petitioner) then suddenly dashed forward, snatched the gun from accused Rachhipal Singh and fired two bullets towards Baljit Singh and killed him. On behalf of the state it was submitted that this was a case of double murder. It was further submitted that Amrik Singh, the father of the deceased, an eye-witness, had lodged the FIR. It is further claimed that in the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., the witness Anup Singh who is the cousin of the complainant, has supported the version given in the FIR. In other words, it was submitted there is enough credible material to infer that the present petitioner was concerned with the commission of offence of murder. On this premise it was submitted on behalf of the State that the petitioner was not entitled to the anticipatory bail.

(2.) ON behalf of the petitioner it was submitted that in this case, after investigation, the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Detective) found that the present petitioner was innocent. It was followed by further scrutiny by the Superintendent of Police (Detective), and he also arrived at the same conclusion that this petitioner was innocent. Under these circumstances, while submitting report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. the name of the petitioner was shown in column No. 2, meaning thereby that the charge-sheet was not submitted against the petitioner. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, however, took into consideration the case thus spelt out in the FIR, supported by the statement of Anup Singh under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and decided to proceed against the petitioner and issued summons against her. In the light of these sequence of events it was submitted that until the guilt was proved, this petitioner was entitled to anticipatory bail. It was submitted that during the long span till this date, while the petitioner was enjoying the liberty, there is nothing to show that she misused the liberty or that she has interfered with the investigation in any manner.