Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SARNAM SINGH & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sarnam Singh & Ors v. State of Haryana - CRM-35473-M-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 6962 (11 September 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No. 35473-M of 2006

DATE OF DECISION : 31.08.2006

Sarnam Singh and others

.... PETITIONERS

Versus

State of Haryana

..... RESPONDENT

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Present: Mr. Rahul Rathore, Advocate, for the petitioners.

Mr. Partap Singh, Senior D.A.G., Haryana.

Mr. V.K. Jindal, Advocate, for the complainant.

* * *

The petitioners, who are father-in-law, brother-in-law (Jeth) and sister-in-law (Jethani) of the deceased, apprehending their arrest in a non-bailable offence in case FIR No. 91 dated 9.4.2004 under Section 302 read with Sections 120-B and 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar Karnal, have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of anticipatory bail, as they have been summoned as additional accused on an application filed by the complainant under Section 319 Cr.P.C.

2. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the order dated 7.6.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal, whereby bail application of the petitioners has been dismissed.

3. Initially, the aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of father of deceased Geeta, who was married to accused Jitender Singh of petitioner No.1, on the allegation that husband of the deceased and his family members used to harass the deceased for bringing a buffalo and a colour TV and they were demanding an amount of Rs. 20,000/-. In the FIR, it was alleged that on 8.4.2004, the complainant was informed that his daughter and accused Jitender had fallen in the canal along with their motor cycle. Jitender came out of the canal alive, whereas deceased Geeta is not traceable. Subsequently, during the investigation, a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded, in which he stated that the reason of the death of his daughter was not the demand of dowry, but actually Jitender and his friends Sunil and Pawan Kumar, after making a plan, had murdered Geeta by throwing her into the canal. During the investigation, it was found that it was not a case of dowry death, but a case of culpable homicide amounting to murder. Hence challan was filed against Jitender husband and his two friends, namely Sunil and Pawan Kumar. The petitioners, against whom there were allegations of demand of dowry, were found innocent and they were kept in column No.2.

4. During the trial, statement of the complainant was recorded, in which he again reiterated his stand that his daughter was done to death for his failure to fulfill the demands of dowry. She was harassed and treated with cruelty by her husband and the petitioners. On the said statement, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was filed by the complainant. The trial court, keeping in view the contrary stand taken by the complainant, dismissed the said application. However, this court vide order dated March 29, 2006, passed in Criminal Revision No. 1297 of 2005, set aside the order of the trial court and summoned the petitioners as additional accused.

5. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners applied for the grant of anticipatory bail and their application was dismissed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal. Hence, this petition.

6. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the stand taken by the complainant is totally contradictory and the allegations of demand of dowry made against the petitioners were found false during the investigation. He further contends that in terms of the order dated August 4, 2006, passed by this Court, the petitioners have appeared before the trial court and furnished their regular bail bonds which have been accepted and attested and since then, they have been regularly appearing before the trial court.

7. In view of the above, without commenting on the merits, the interim bail, granted to the petitioners is made absolute.

8. Disposed of accordingly. August 31, 2006 ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL )

ndj JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.