LAKHWANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Bhajan Kaur was married to Jit Singh. According to Angrez Singh, who is her father, soon after their marriage, his son-in-law Jit Singh, her elder brother-in-law Lakhwant Singh, her younger brother-in-law Bansa Singh and father-in-law Inder Singh started harassing Bhajan Kaur saying that she was of immoral character and threatened her with death. In the wake of her harassment at their hands, she came to her village Bootan on number of occasions and told Swaran Singh Sarpanch, and one Dayal Singh that she was being harassed by her husband, his brother and father saying that she was of immoral character, she further told them that she was fed up with maltreatment/ill-treatment being meted out to her by them. Swaran Singh, Sarpanch and Dayal Singh assured Smt. Bhajan Kaur and sent her back to the matrimonial home on those occasions. A few days prior to her death, she again came to her village, that day also, she told Swaran Singh, Sarpanch and Dayal Singh that she was being harassed by her husband, father-in-law Lakhwant Singh and Bansa Singh and they were suspecting her fidelity saying that she was of immoral character. She further told them that she would better die than to lead such an ignominious life. A few days thereafter, Swaran Singh, Dayal Singh and some other persons went to the village of her in-laws and brought about compromise. In the wake of that compromise, she was sent with Jit Singh to her matrimonial home. Then also, they reiterated that she was of immoral character. On 5th August, 1998 at 6.00 p.m., her father came to know that his daughter had hanged herself and died.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Lakhwant Singh and Harbans Singh @ Bansa Singh were putting up separate from Jit Singh and his wife and there was no occasion to insinuate her character. He further submits that if she committed suicide, that was her own act and there was no contribution to the commission of suicide by her by the petitioners as it was her father's concern whether she was chaste or unchaste and it was none of their concern if she was unchaste. He further submits that the petitioners have been in custody since August, 1998 and the trial may take quite some time.

(3.) Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I feel that bail should be allowed to the petitioners. So, bail to them to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.