High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/10762/2017dismissed

Sanjeev Kumar v. State Of Haryana

2017-03-30Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh2 pages

CRM No.M-10762 of 2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-10762 of 2017 Date of decision: 30.03.2017 Sanjeev Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE REKHA MITTAL

Present:

Mr. karan Vir Nanda, Advocate for the petitioner.

REKHA MITTAL J. (Oral) The petitioner prays for grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No.220 dated 20.02.2017 under Section 365 of the Indian Penal Code (in short 'IPC) registered at Police Station Jagadhri City, District Yamuna Nagar (offence under Section 306 IPC added later). Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Babita (since deceased) was married to Bhushan Lal elder brother of the petitioner in the year 2005. The younger sister of Babita namely Pooja was married to the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner along with his family is residing on the first floor of the same house, therefore, had nothing to do with Babita and her family. It is vehemently argued that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is not required and he is ready to face the proceedings, in accordance with law.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the paperbook particularly the order dated 17.03.2017 passed by this Court in regard to pre-arrest bail of Dharam Pal, father-in-law of the victim in Mohd. Yakub 2017.03.

CRM No.M-10762 of 2017 CRM-M No.9053 of 2017 decided on 17.03.2017.

The FIR was lodged at the behest of Sant Lal, father of deceased - Babita who has not indicted Bhushan Lal, husband of Babita in the crime. On the other hand, it has been alleged that Dharam Pal and Sanjeev had been causing beatings to Babita and on 19.02.2017, he received telephonic call from Babita at about 04:00 O' clock that father-in-law and brother-in-law had been beating her and they have turned her life into hell and those persons would kill her. Babita went missing from the house on 19.02.2017 itself and her dead body was found in Dadupur Canal.

Taking into consideration the allegations against the petitioner and father-in-law of the deceased coupled with the factum that husband of the deceased has not been accused of the offence and the fact that custodial interrogation of the petitioner would elicite as to the circumstances under which Babita was compelled to take an extreme step to eliminate herself, the petitioner does not deserve to be extended benefit of bail in anticipation of arrest. Dismissed.

(REKHA MITTAL) JUDGE 30.03.2017 yakub Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No Mohd. Yakub 2017.03.31 14:25 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh