AJIT PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER Ajit Pal Singh was the husband of deceased Devinderjit Kaur. Their marriage took place on 8.12.1996. Devinderjit Kaur died due to burning on 31.3.1997, at her matrimonial home. The father of the deceased lodged an FIR and made a grievance that present petitioner Ajit Pal Singh, his mother Surinderjit Kaur and sister-in-law Sarbpreet Kaur used to harass and torture his daughter, on the issue of the inadequate dowry and used to demand more dowry. It is further alleged by him that on being fed up due to the torture and harassment, his daughter Devinderjit Kaur committed suicide. On the basis of the FIR offence under Sections 304-B and 498-A both read with Section 34 IPC was registered at Police Station, Civil Lines, Amritsar. The police submitted charge-sheet for these two offences.

(2.) WHEN the matter came up before the Session Court, it noticed that the post-mortem report indicated following ante mortem injuries namely :- (i) two reddish brown abrasions 3.5 x 2 cm and 2.5 x 1.5 cm were present on the left side of the forehead four cms above innelend of eyebrow and ostcend of the left eyebrow. (ii) Five reddish brown abrasions were present in front of right upper arm and exilla. The sizes varied from 3 x 1 cm to 1.5 x 1 cm. (iii) Four reddish brown abrasions were present in front of right upper arm. Their sizes varied from 1 x 0.75 cm to 2 x 1.5 cm.

(3.) INITIALLY , the bail application was submitted before this Court on a bona fide belief that offence was under Sections 304-B and 498-A IPC. It appears that the subsequent development in changing the offence under Section 302 IPC had not by that time come to the notice of the counsel for the petitioner, and he redrafted the petition for bail solely depending on the contents of the FIR and the order by which the Session Court had rejected the bail for offences under Section 304-B and 498-A IPC. An application for cancellation of bail was, thereafter, moved in this Court and bail was cancelled by observing that the order granting bail was based on wrong information and that is required to be corrected. However, at the same time the original bail granted to the petitioner was continued till 3.7.1998 in order to enable the accused to move the Court for seeking bail on merits. That order was taken up to the Supreme Court and was confirmed by maintaining interim bail.