SHANTI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONERS seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 498-A/307, 304-B, 316 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. FIR No. 69 dated 3.6.1995 was registered on the statement of Smt. Sunita Rani deceased. Her statement when translated reads as under :-

(2.) On the basis of the aforesaid statement of Smt. Sunita Rani, the police, however, registered a case under sections 307, 498-A read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused were arrested on 9.6.1995 and were produced in the court. Subsequently an application was filed for discharge of the accused persons stating therein that during investigation no proof has been found and that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. Accordingly, it was prayed that accused Kewal Krishan and Des Raj be discharged as nothing was found against them. The case was adjourned for recording statement of Talwinder Singh and Superintendent of Police to 31.7.1995. Meanwhile Additional Sessions Judge keeping in view the application filed by the prosecution agency for discharging Kewal Krishan and Des Raj accused, ordered for release of Smt. Shanti petitioner on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety in the like amount in the event of her arrest in case under section 498-A/307 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code vide order dated 24.7.1995. Subsequently another application was filed by SI/SHO Police station Khuian Sarwar, Annexure P.3, that the earlier application for discharging the accused Kewal Krishan and Des Raj be dismissed as Smt. Sunita has died and so now a case under sections 304-B and 316 of the Indian Penal Code has also been framed against the accused persons. It was further stated that the statement made by Smt. Sunita has become a dying declaration. Sessions Judge examined the matter in the light of the material reference to which has been made in the earlier part of the judgement found no case for enlarging the petitioners on bail in terms of Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short 'the Code'). The Court specifically noticed that Sunita has made specific allegations against Kewal Krishan, father-in- law; Smt. Shanti, mother-in-law; and her husband. Thus, the court dismissed the application vide order dated 30.9.1996.

(3.) CHALLENGING the order passed by the Sessions Judge, counsel for the petitioners has argued that the same is unsustainable in law and otherwise unwarranted as per facts of the case. According to the learned counsel, the investigating agency after examining the matter in the light of the material, prima facie, came to the conclusion that Kewal Krishan and Des Raj accused need to be discharged as no material was found against them and so they were granted pre-arrest bail. Subsequently too, Addl. Sessions Judge keeping in view the prayer of the investigating agency earlier made vide Annexure P.1 dated 10.7.1995 enlarged the third accused, namely, Smt. Shanti too on pre-arrest bail on her furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs. 20,000/- with one surety of the like amount. Since none of these accused persons had infringed any of the conditions imposed by the Court while granting concession of pre-arrest bail there was no reason for the Sessions Judge to decline the petitioners the concession of pre-arrest bail. Counsel further argued that factual aspects were urged before the court and so framing of case under sections 304-B/316 of the Indian Penal Code does not in any manner affect the order passed by the Court considering the merit of the case. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions in cases reported as Darshan Singh v. The State of Punjab and another, 1986 Chandigarh Criminal Cases 248; Karan Singh v. State of Haryana, 1987(2) Recent Criminal Reports 503 and Lal Chand v. State of Haryana, 1988(2) Recent Criminal Reports 664.