Tejo Devi v. State Of Haryana
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 09.08.2024
Pronounced on: 30.08.2024 Tejo Devi
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana
...Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present:
Mr. Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Rajat Gautam, Addl. AG, Haryana.
**** ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No.
Dated Police Station Sections 20.08.2023 Ismailabad, District 306, 34 IPC (Section 306 IPC Kurukshetra replaced by Section 302 IPC later on) 1.
The petitioner incarcerated in the FIR captioned above had come up before this Court under Section 439 CrPC, 1973, seeking regular bail. 2.
In paragraph 22 of the bail petition, the accused declares that he has no criminal antecedents.
3.
The facts and allegations are being taken from the translated copy of FIR annexed with the bail petition, which reads as follows: "Statement of Somnath S/o Moman Ram Resident of Plakha, P.S. Sanaur, District Patiala, aged 55 years, M.No. 9700530026 Stated that I am resident of above mentioned address and I am labourer by profession I have two sons and two daughters; they all are married. That marriage of my eldest daughter Ramandeep Kaur was solemnized with Hakam Singh @ Kalu S/o Chander Bhan Resident of Tharauli, Distt. Kurukshetra in year 2012; I gave gifts and dowry articles in the marriage according to my status. After the marriage, my daughter was having a son namely, Jaspreet Singh @ Jassu who is about 9 years of age at this time.
After 2 years of marriage my daughter Ramandeep Kaur used to tell me that her husband Hakam Singh comes to home after drinking alcohol and he used to scuffle with her daily; her mother-in-law Tejo Devi also used to scuffle/fight with her; when she used to stop her husband Hakam Singh from drinking alcohol then her mother-in-law used to take the side of her son Hamak; she used to utter bad words against me.
number of Panchayat Meeting were convened consisting of both the families and in the Panchayat they used to take my daughter back while giving assurance that Hakam will not scuffle after drinking alcohol and he will also not drink alcohol. That about 20-22 days ago my daughter Ramandeep Kaur gave a complaint before police Station Ismailabad against her husband Hakam for scuffling with her after drinking alcohol. The Panchayats from both the sides convened in relation to that complaint and in the presence of respectable persons of panchayat, my son-in-law Hakam Singh felt sorry and he assured that he will not scuffle with my daughter Ramandeep Kaur in future. He also said before Panchayat that neither he will stop Ramandeep Kaur from doing labour work outside nor he would raise any kind of bad allegation upon her.
About 4-5 days ago my daughter Ramandeep Kaur made a telephonic call to me and told me as well as my family members that her husband Hakam Singh has started taking alcohol again and leveling allegation against me that I am relations outside. I and my family members told my daughter Ramandeep Kaur that we will come to her after 4-5 days and will make Hakam Singh understand before Panchayat. Today i.e., on 20.08.2023 at about 12:30 night, my grandson Jaspreet Singh @ Jassu made a telephonic call to me and told me that her mother has expired. Upon receiving the said information I along with my family members and other respectable persons of the village reached village Tharoli. I and my family members found that the dead body of my daughter Ramandeep Kaur was lying in the courtyard of house.
I and my family members after seeing the dead body of my daughter carefully noticed the rope marks around her neck. That my daughter Ramandeep Kaur was very much fed up from her husband Hakam Singh @ Kalu and mother-in-law Tejo Devi. That my daughter Ramandeep Kaur being fed up from her husband Hakam Singh and mother-in-law Tejo Devi has finished her life. I request you to take strict legal action against my son-in-law Hakam Singh and his mother Tejo Devi."
4.
The petitioner's counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent conditions and contends that further pre-trial incarceration would cause an irreversible injustice to the petitioner and their family.
5.
The petitioner's counsel refers to para 5 of the bail petition, which reads as follows:
"5. That out of the wedlock of son and daughter-in-law of petitioner there is a male child who is about 10 years of age now and there is no one in the family to look after him."
6.
The State's counsel opposes bail and refers to the reply. 7.
It would be appropriate to refer to the following portions of the reply, which read as follows:
"That on the basis of above said complaint, FIR no. 212 dated 20.08.2023 was register under section 306, 34 IPC in Police Station Ismailabad District Kurukshetra and case was investigated by the local police. During investigation scene of crime team called on the spot. Proceeding under
section 174 Cr.PC was conducted. Rough site plane of the place of occurrence was prepared. The post mortem of dead body was conducted in hospital. Thereafter, the dead body was handed over their legal heirs. There were seven injuries on dead body of deceased. The viscera and other samples were sent for FSL to Madhuban and senior professor and head of Kalpna Chawla Government Hospital, Karnal. The complainant and his family members were again joined in the investigation. The opinion of doctors was obtained, as per which the injury no. 1 to 7 can be sustained by some other persons. It was found that deceased was killed by her husband and mother-in-law after strangulating her with a dupatta. Subsequently, section 306 was deleted and section 302 was added." 8.
The primary evidence against the petitioner is of last seen. The petition does not explain anything about this evidence.
9.
A perusal of the bail petition and the documents attached primafacie points towards the petitioner's involvement and does not make out a case for bail. Any further discussions will likely prejudice the petitioner; this court refrains from doing so. 10.
Considering the severe nature of the allegations, the petitioner is not allowed bail even for taking care of his grandson. Another reason to disbelieve such grounds is the lack of pleadings about the absence of close adult relatives. 11.
Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the case's merits nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments. 12.
Petition dismissed. All pending applications, if any, are disposed of. (ANOOP CHITKARA) JUDGE 30.08.2024 anju rani Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes Whether reportable:
No.