SURAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner is facing trial for offences under Section 498A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his daughter -in -law Parveen. Allegations are that he and his son Jagbir were instrumental in compelling the deceased to end her life because of unreasonable demands for money, which was to be utilized by the Petitioner and his son for the construction of some portion of their house.

(2.) THE Petitioner preferred bail application before the learned Sessions Judge Kangra at Dharamshala, which was rejected on 21.11.2009. The Petitioner was arrested on 16th August, 2009. On going through the order, I find that two grounds were urged before the learned Sessions Judge in support of the contention that the Petitioner should not be released on bail. First was that if he is released, investigation and trial of the case would be adversely affected. Second was that he will threaten the prosecution witnesses. Both these allegations were serious. From the record I do not find any material to support either the contentions. Learned Sessions Judge was not correct in accepting these bald assertions by the prosecution. There has to be something on record to indicate that the accused has either made an attempt or will make an attempt which finding have to be recorded on some prima facie material, not conclusive evidence. Subsequently, two applications were moved, one by the Petitioner and second by his son before the learned Sessions Judge, Kangra. He also rejects the applications holding that there is prima facie evidence that the Petitioners in that applications are involved in the case. The fact that the previous bail application has also rejected was also noted.

(3.) ONE of the most important facts is the recording of the statements of the star witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, which would make a difference in as much as the recording by the learned Sessions Judge that investigation would be hampered and the witnesses would be influenced, no long exists. I also note that mother -in -law of the deceased was released on bail on 9.11.2009. It is also the case of the prosecution that his custodial interrogation is not required any more. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner places reliance on decision of Delhi High Court in Malkhan Singh v. State, 2010 (1) Crimes 99 (Del), holding that the fact that the accused has been in custody for more then ten months would itself constitute a ground for his release on bail. Of course the Court has also made certain observations that each case has to be decided on its own facts. Without entering into the merits of the evidence recorded by the Court, I am prima facie satisfied that the release of the Petitioner on bail would not in any manner prejudice the case of the prosecution nor would it expose the witnesses of the prosecution in any manner. I have made this observation because of the fact that learned Sessions Judge records this in his order without there being any material on record.