AMRIK Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD . Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 20.6.1998 at about 8.05 p.m. statement of Smt. Rani deceased wife of Amrik was recorded by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Phagwara in which she had stated that she had caught fire accidentally due to the stove burst when she was lighting the stove and that no body had set her on fire. He further submits that to the same effect is the statement made by her father during the inquest proceedings prepared on 21.6.1998. He submits that while lodging FIR Smt. Rani's father took a complete somersault and stated that Rani had told him that she had been set on fire by her husband who had poured kerosene oil in the kitchen, as he wanted to get rid of her. Learned counsel submits that it is debatable whether she had caught fire accidentally or she had been set on fire by her husband. As to which of these two versions is correct, that is to be adjudicated at the trial.

(2.) IN the fitness of things, I feel bail should be allowed to the petitioner. So, bail to him to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.