SANTOSH RANI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been filed under Sec. 439 (2) Cr.P.C. for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No.2 i.e. Surat Ram vide order dtd. 15/11/2017 (Annexure P-3) in case FIR No. 78 dtd. 17/8/2017 registered under Ss. 307,120-B,34 IPC ( Sec. 302 IPC added later on) at Police Station Ghanour, District Patiala.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by husband of the petitioner, wherein, respondent No.2 was specifically named and specific role was attributed to him. It was specifically mentioned by husband of the petitioner that it was respondent No.2 in whose connivance the other accused persons have set him on fire by putting petrol due to which he died subsequently. Learned counsel further contends that as the FIR was registered on the basis of statement made by husband of the petitioner, it amounts to dying declaration and the same is admissible in evidence. Learned counsel also contends that after grant of anticipatory bail, respondent No.2 is pressuring the petitioner and her family members to withdraw the case. A threat was also given to the petitioner that if the case was not withdrawn, she would be falsely implicated in some case. A representation in this regard was also made to the police but no action has been taken thereupon so far. At the end, learned counsel contends that respondent No.2 is a powerful person and is having links with high-ups of the police and he is also trying to pressurize the witnesses of the case so that witnesses may not depose against him.

(3.) Learned counsel for respondent-State contends that no such representation was received by the police and even no specific date and time has been mentioned in the representation annexed with the petition.