ANOKH SINGH Vs. SUKHDEV SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application by one Anokh Singh whereby he has claimed that bail allowed by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurdaspur to Sukhdev Singh respondent No. 1 in case FIR No. 348 dated 5.12.97 under Section 304- B/306 Indian Penal Code of PS Sadar Batala be cancelled.

(2.) FACTS of the case projected by the prosecution are as follows :- Anokh Singh's daughter Rajwinder Kaur was married to Sukhdev Singh respondent No. 1 on 16.11.94. Ever since her marriage, she was harassed by her in-laws saying that dowry brought by her was inadequate. On 28.11.97, she was allegedly poisoned to death by her husband Sukhdev Singh, father-in-law Swaran Singh, jeth Gurdev Singh and jethani Jatinder Kaur. Case was registered on 5.12.97. In the FIR, Anokh Singh made specific allegation that demands were made by Sukhdev Singh, Swaran Singh, Gurdev Singh and Jatinder Kaur. He also stated in the FIR that with great difficulty he could fulfil their demand to the tune of Rs. 1 lac. After 8-10 days again, he received letter from his daughter Rajwinder Kaur that her in-laws were demanding colour TV. On 19.11.94 something poisonous was administered to her which led to her death. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for Anokh Singh that Sukhdev Singh is the husband of his daughter and his daughter was sacrificed at the altar of dowry by Sukhdev Singh, his father Swaran Singh, his brother Gurdev Singh and his sister-in-law Jatinder Kaur within about 3 years of her marriage. He should not have been allowed bail because if his demand for dowry had been fulfilled, he would have been benefited. He submitted that it was greed on his part that prompted him and others to lay demand on Rajwinder Kaur.

(3.) IT was observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathsinh Judeja v. State of Gujarat, 1984 Criminal Law Journal 160 that "very cogent and overwhelming circumstances are necessary for an order seeking cancellation of bail. And the trend today is towards granting bail because it is now well settled by a catena of decisions of this court that the power to grant bail is not to be exercised as if the punishment before trial is being imposed. The only material considerations in such a situation are whether the accused would be readily available for his trial and whether he is likely to abuse the discretion granted in his favour by tampering with evidence."