JAGMOHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant petition has been instituted by the bail petitioner under Section 439 Cr.P.C, for his being released from the judicial custody wherein he is extantly lodged, for his having allegedly committed offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 306, 201 readwith Section 34 of Indian Penal Code, recorded in case FIR No. 81/2014 of 16.5.2014 registered at Police Station Palampur, District Kangra, H.P.

(2.) The Investigating Officer has filed a detailed status report. The deceased was married to the accused/bail applicant in the year 2012. The father of the deceased has in the FIR recorded therein the allegations of the bail applicant/accused barely within 21/2 months since the bail applicant and the deceased having entered into a wedlock, taking to mete out harassment besides ill-treatment and maltreatment to his deceased daughter. However, the purported ill-treatments and maltreatments meted by the bail applicant to the deceased are alleged therein to be mere general allegations omitting to spell out therein with specificity the specific acts of mental and physical cruelty perpetrated by the bail applicant/accused upon the deceased. However, the bail applicant/accused is alleged to have with unabated vigor persisted in meteing ill-treatment besides maltreatment to the deceased Binta. Even though generalized allegations of illtreatment and maltreatment allegedly perpetrated by the bail applicant upon deceased Binta, may not be construable to be sufficient in magnitude or enormity so as to goad or instigate the deceased to commit suicide especially when such generalized allegations of maltreatment or ill-treatment are improximate to the ill-fated occurrence. However, the learned Deputy Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the factum that immediately preceding the occurrence, in as much as on 15.11.2013 the deceased had reported an incident of hers having been subjected to physical cruelty by the bail applicant, to police Station, Baijnath and the reporting by the deceased of an occurrence of physical cruelty perpetrated on her person by the bail applicant constituted it to be the instigatory or fomenting factor for the deceased to commit suicide. However even if assuming that the occurrence of 15.11.2013 manifesting the factum of the deceased having been subjected to physical cruelty by the bail applicant/accused may have constituted the instigatory factor for her to commit suicide yet the factum that the records as produced before this Court by the Investigating Officer do not divulge the fact that at the time when the deceased reported the factum of hers having been subjected to physical cruelty by the accused to Police Station Baijnath, she was subjected to medical examination by the medical officer concerned for sustaining the version manifested in the FIR of hers having been subjected to physical cruelty by the bail applicant/accused. Necessarily when the preparation of a MLC by the Doctor Concerned revealing therein the fact in consonance with the inculpatory role attributed to the bail applicant in the FIR, in as much as of the bail applicant/accused having subjected the deceased to physical cruelty, was imperative. Yet, when the record produced by the Investigating Officer does not divulge that the deceased was ever subjected to medical examination nor obviously when any MLC was prepared by the Doctor concerned portraying the factum that she suffered injuries on her person, in sequel to hers having been subjected to physical cruelty by the accused/bail petitioner as displayed in the FIR. In aftermath, absence of the aforesaid apposite material on record constrains this court to conclude that the allegations constituted in the FIR lodged by the deceased Binta on 15.11.2013 before Police Station, Baijnath portraying therein the factum of the bail applicant having subjected her to physical cruelty may not be of any help to the learned Deputy Advocate General to, on its strength with any force contend before this court, that the said factum constituted in the FIR lodged with P.S Baijnath on 15.11.2013 may constitute the fomenting, actuating and goading cause for the deceased to commit suicide. Apart therefrom the incident which occurred on 15.11.2013 stands improximately distanced from the ill-fated occurrence which took place on 16.5.2014. Necessarily then given the improximity inter-se the incident of 13.11.2014 vis- -vis the ill-fated occurrence which took place on 16.5.2014, the effect, if any of the physical cruelty meted by the bail applicant to the deceased cannot be concluded to have still remain etched in the mind of the deceased to hence goad or actuate her to commit suicide. The material as placed on record by the Investigating Officer does not portray that immediately preceding the occurrence the deceased was subjected to physical cruelty , harassment or ill-treatment by the accused in pursuance whereof she took to make a complaint to either the Panchyat or the police station, concerned. In absence thereof, it has to be construed that immediately preceding the ill-fated occurrence, the accused never subjected the deceased to cruelty of any form. However, the learned deputy Advocate General with much vehemence and vigour has contended that the statements of the relatives of the deceased to whom a communication was made by the deceased qua the factum of hers having been subjected to physical as well as mental cruelty by the accused incessantly up till the date of occurrence ought to beget an inference from this court of the deceased having been up till the ill-fated occurrence subjected to physical cruelty by the accused which constituted the instigatory factor for her to commit suicide. Nonetheless, it appears that the IO has only taken to record the statements of the close relatives of the deceased. Even if the deceased being a rustic villager would take to confide only in her close relations yet the factum that in close proximity to the matrimonial house of the deceased where the ill-fated occurrence took place, there exist homesteads, necessarily then to lend a hue of impartisanship besides transparency to the investigation, the Investigating Officer ought to have proceeded to not only record the statements of the closest relatives of the deceased which may acquire the blemish of interestedness rather he ought to have also recorded the statements of the inhabitants of the homesteads located in the immediate proximity to the matrimonial home of the deceased, for eliciting or unearthing from them the factum whether the accused was a drunkard as also to unearth from them the factum whether they had at any stage overheard the deceased shrieking or crying when allegedly she was belabored by the bail applicant and that too in a state of drunkenness. Omission on the part of the Investigating Officer to record the statements of the inhabitants of the homesteads located in close vicinity to the matrimonial home of the deceased where the ill-fated occurrence took place, constrains this Court to conclude that the Investigating Officer has carried out a slanted and partisan investigation. Prima-facie at this stage, it appears that the investigation as carried by the Investigating Officer anvilled upon the statements of the closest relatives of the deceased necessarily then their statements while prima-facie being engrained with the blemish of interestedness at this stage may not inspire the confidence of this Court besides renders the investigation to be partisan. In face thereof and given the factum that the bail applicant has suffered judicial incarceration since 16th May, 2014 hence it would not be appropriate to prolong his judicial custody any longer as it would unnecessarily curtail and fetter his liberty.

(3.) Moreover, when at this stage no material has been placed on record by the prosecution demonstrating that in the event of bail being granted to the bail petitioner, there is every likelihood of his fleeing from justice or tampering with prosecution evidence, this Court is constrained to afford the facility of bail in favour of the bail petitioner. Accordingly, the bail petitioner is ordered to be released on bail from judicial custody, subject to compliance by him with the following conditions:-: