NACHHATTAR KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER -Nachhattar Kaur, mother of deceased Gurbax Kaur, later on named as Gurjeet Kaur, has filed this petition under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 Darshan Kaur vide this Court's order dated 1.8.1997. Nachhattar Kaur got her statement recorded on 20.2.1997 wherein she disclosed that her daughter Gurbax Kaur, aged 24 years, was married in October, 1996 with Manjit Singh son of Harbhajan Singh of village Samrari. After a month when Gurbax Kaur came to her parental home, she complained that her mother -in -law is taunting her that she has not brought the Scooter and Television in dowry. A week before her death, Gurbax Kaur came to see her father in her parental home. At that time also, she narrated a woeful story of harassment meted out to her by her in -laws, though she was pregnant, but she was apprehensive that her husband would get her aborted. She stated that her husband complains that she is older in age and after leaving her, he would marry another girl. Gurbax Kaur was pacified by her parents and she was made to understand that she has to live in her matrimonial home in harmony avoiding trifles, but on 20.2.1997 the complainant received the information that Gurbax Kaur has committed suicide. She suspected that Gurbax Kaur is strangulated by her mother -in -law and husband.

(2.) AFTER recording her statement, police started investigation. After completing investigation, charge -sheet was filed under Section 304 -B/34 of the Indian Penal Code against respondent No. 2 Darshan Kaur and other accused.

(3.) DURING the pendency of the trial, bail application was filed on behalf of Darshan Kaur -respondent No. 2 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. During arguments of this Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13821 -M of 1997, the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab submitted that on 18.9.1997 all the prosecution witnesses were summoned numbering 17; hence, this Court directed the trial Court to examine all the important witnesses on 18th, 19th and 20th September, 1997 consecutively. After examining all the important witnesses, the trial Court was directed to enlarge the petitioner on bail provided "no attempt is made by any of the accused to protract the trial on these dates or the defence counsel does not co -operate in getting the statements of these witnesses recorded or praying for deferring the cross - examination of any of the prosecution witnesses."