AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON the statement of Balbir Singh, FIR 29 dated 18.4.1999 has been registered at Police Station Sohana under Section 304-B IPC, wherein the following allegations are found :- The complainant's sister-Baljit Kaur was married to Palwinder Singh. Baljit Kaur and Palwinder Singh resided at Village Sekhan Majra. After one year, Baljit Kaur used to say that petitioner-Amrik Singh (the elder brother of her husband), his wife-Manpreet Kaur, mother-in-law-Pritam Kaur, father-in-law Shamsher Singh, her husband-Palwinder Singh and his sisters Balwinder Kaur and Sukhpal Kaur kept demanding a scooter and fridge, but the complainant could not give them. On 20.3.1999, these persons beat his sister and she was left at his village by Palwinder Singh. On 26.3.99, a complaint had also been lodged at Police Post, Navipur against Palwinder Singh, on which Palwinder Singh was called by the police and a compromise was signed by Baljit Kaur and Palwinder Singh that they will stay together. She was taken by Palwinder Singh to his village Sekhan Majra. On 18.4.99, Palwinder Singh met the complainant and told that his sister was sick. The complainant and others reached Sekhan Majra. Baljit Kaur had been killed or given poison by these persons.

(2.) THE petitioner's application for bail in anticipation of arrest under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Rupnagar, and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court for the same relief.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a Constable employed in Chandigarh and on 18.4.99, he was on duty from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. According to the petitioner, he is not aware of the circumstances leading to the death of Baljit Kaur and has nothing to do with the life of Palwinder Singh and his wife Baljit Kaur. He also contends that he has been living separately and has produced in support there of the copies of the ration cards issued separately for himself and his family and Palwinder Singh and his family. The learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that petitioner being the elder brother of the husband of the deceased, has nothing to do with the offence in question, and therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail. But the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, points out the order of the learned Sessions Judge wherein the learned Sessions Judge has observed that there was a compromise in which the petitioner-Amrik Singh alongwith the others had agreed not to cause any harassment to Baljit Kaur, and even thereafter they did not stop causing harassment to her, and therefore, Baljit Kaur had consumed poison and ended her life on 18.4.99. The copy of the compromise is also not before the Court and even otherwise in a compromise, if all the family members had assembled and if there was some agreement that Baljit Kaur should not be harassed, it does not mean that the petitioner, who is elder brother of the husband of the deceased, had been ill-treating her. The alleged demand is for a scooter and a fridge from which the petitioner cannot derive any benefit, as it is apparent that he is living separately. In these circumstances, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. This petition is allowed.