Amarjeet Kaur v. State Of Punjab
!
"
$%&%
!" # $$$
% $$$
& $$ $% '() $ (*+% '()% $
'()* "+,* -(.
$,%-%..-+'()/$ 0% %++ ( - % % %( 12$ ,% %
0
1-2
.%2 !
1%&
-
$%& 4
$% '
4
$%& 5 5
+ 6& +$ 2
2%$
%*
,
7%6* "%& %$
2%$
66%&&%
* +6 %&
As per the case of the prosecution, the FIR, in the present case, was got registered by Kewal Chand by alleging that Sandeep Kaur alias Sonia (petitioner in CRM-M-56666-2022) had performed love marriage with Mukesh Kumar, his brother, and they were blessed with a son. There were temperamental differences between Sandeep Kaur alias Sonia and Mukesh Kumar (deceased) and as a consequence, Sandeep Kaur alias Sonia started living with her parents. At about 11.30 P.M. on 11.03.2022, Kewal Chand came to know that the dead body of his brother Mukesh Kumar was lying in the area of Mandi Bhagtanwala and some unknown persons had murdered him. Resultantly, an FIR was registered against the unknown persons. During the course of investigation, the police recorded the statement of Mukesh Kumar son of Shanti Parkash on 25.03.
2022 to the effect that at about 8.00 P.M. on 10.03.2022, he had seen Mukesh Kumar, deceased, in the company of Manpreet Singh, Raja and Ladla, while they were going on Activa Scooter from Chowk Chatiwind to Chowk Bhagtanwala. Later on, Kewal Chand, complainant, had also made a supplementary statement on 25.03.2022, and got it recorded that Sandeep Kaur alias Sonia, the petitioner, was having differences with her husband Mukesh Kumar and by conspiring with her mother Amarjeet Kaur (the petitioner in ), her brother Manpreet Singh and Lalda had committed the murder of Mukesh Kumar.
$-&
$ &
#2& %6/2%$
20
.&%& &-&/%$% :
)&
1%&
.&%&
& 6
.0 ;
)2 *
$ & *
6 0
& $$-&
&%
:
$-& $ &
.
6
& -7 & ;-6 * $ & *
6
%1
)%
;-
2%&
% 1%&
)%& %& #6%20 6.
#-
&-.6%& .
)
&
$-&0
2& 6
#-
6&
%22 #-
*
)& 1220 6%&&%.2
9% $
1%& .
+/ # 6 - %1
$-
& $-%
9% $ *
& $-%
<6% = *
= ;
)2 * $6/2%* = -7 & ;-6
&
% 7& =
6 ;-6
22
#-
6
%2 )% && % &-//
& $-%
$$
$9%$% .
.2 7 +/ # 6 * - 2 )% && &*
20 #-
)% &&
<6% & # * $& >- 20*
$$2-&%
%2 .0
%2 - )%22 7
$&%
.2
%6
%
#-
% )-2
0 -& #-2 /- /&
*
$-& & 20 //&
0
6
.0
$-&
- .
$&/%
)% /
%1
2%&
(* ) %&
& +6 (% ;-
;-
2%&
%
/
%1 82 $66%
6-
-7 & ;-6
)
*
6%& .
%929
)% %
$% '
4
$-&
/ %
-&
#%2
6%-
-&
/ #%2 .0 )0 ##%9% %& 7
$
4 %&
//
# 6
$ .
$-&0 &%$
%
6
#-
6& 20 #-
)% && &* - )% &&
<6% & #
22
#-
6
%2 )% &&
#-& &-//
& $-%
Without commenting on the merits of the case, both these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail subject to their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate, concerned. Pending application, if any, is also disposed of. (N.S. SHEKHAWAT) 10.08.2023 JUDGE mks Whether Speaking/Reasoned: YES / NO Whether Reportable:
YES / NO