Kamaljeet Kaur v. State Of Punjab
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 28.01.2021 CRM-M-15827 of 2020 Kamaljeet Kaur
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
2) CRM-M-16610 of 2020 Gurpreet Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH Present:- Mr. Hakam Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner in both the petitions.
Mr. Amit Mehta, Sr. DAG, Punjab Mr. Yogesh Goel, Advocate, for the complainant. Amol Rattan Singh, J. (Oral) Case heard by video conference:- By these two petitions, filed under the provisions of Section 438 of the Cr.P.C., the petitioners in both the petitions seek the concession of anticipatory bail, upon FIR no.0044 dated 25.02.2020, having been registered at Police Station Focal Point, District Ludhiana, alleging therein the commission of offences punishable under Sections 306 and 115 of the IPC, (with Section 115 of the IPC deleted subsequently). On June 19, 2020, the following order had been passed in CRM-M-15827 of 2020:-
-2-
!
"
#$% &&" '( ' ')')"
*
#
"
+ " *
,)-
( $ . *
( $
/ +
" " " 0 " ')
"
"
1
"
3 4 * *" 05" 6"
"
4
73$80
3 " 9 "
- 1 ')') 9 * 7 " + "
"
* 7 $ " "
6
*
-3- &,:.'/ "
"
" ;
8$;3 $
6
" $; 3 "
6
" 9
" *
" " < Thereafter, on November 03, 2020, the following order had been passed in CRM-M-16610 of 2020:
9 = >
+ ': ) ')'
%33 (:'1')') $ "
6
$ "
6
? 8$ ? 9
6
*
&,:.'/ < Today, learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Jagjeet
-4Singh, submits that the petitioners in these two petitions have joined investigation and presently at least their custodial interrogation is not required.
As regards the direction given by this court on 06.07.2020 in CRM-M-15827 of 2020, that the Deputy Commissioner of Police would look into the allegation against ASI Gurmeet Singh, Police Post Ramgarh, Police Station Sahnewal, a reply of the DCP (Detective), Ludhaina, is on record, giving therein the entire history of the dispute and eventually stating that as per the enquiry conducted, the aforesaid ASI Gurmeet Singh was not found to be gultiy of having harassed the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, submits that in fact no audio recording (as has been referred to in the order dated 06.07.2020) was produced by the complainant, on the ground that the mobile phone in which it was recorded was no longer available. Mr. Goel, learned counsel for the complainant, submits that reply of the DCP does not take into account the statement of the deceased, recorded under the provisions of Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. He also submits that the petitioners, in the aforesaid circumstances do not deserve to be admitted to bail.
Having considered the matter, what this court is obviously not to lose sight of, is that these are petitions filed by the accused seeking to be admitted to bail in case they are sought to be arrested in the context of the FIR in question. This court having directed them to join investigation and ordered that they be admitted to bail in case they are sought to be arrested,
-5and eventually today, learned State counsel having submitted on instructions from the aforesaid police official (ASI Jagjeet Singh) that their custodial interrogation is not required, there would be no reason for this court to direct, in these petitions at least, that the accused be arrested. That being so, without making any comment on the actual merits of the case, whatsoever, since the investigating agency itself does not require the custodial interrogation of the petitioners, these petition have in fact been rendered infructuous and are disposed of as such. However, if the petitioners' custodial interrogation is required at any stage hereinafter, in the context of the FIR in question, they would be given 10 days notice before arrest, duly shown to be served upon them. Naturally, if the complainant is aggrieved in any manner, of lack of proper investigation, he would be always at liberty to avail of his remedy as per law.
A copy of this order be placed on the file of the other connected matter too.
28.01.2021 (AMOL RATTAN SINGH) vcgarg JUDGE Whether reasoned/speaking: Yes Whether reportable:
No