Gurpreet Singh @ Peeti v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M No.51059 of 2019 -1IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.51059 of 2019 Date of Decision.24.02.2020 Gurpreet Singh @ Peeti

...Petitioner

Vs State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM:HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JAISHREE THAKUR

Present:

Mr. Manish Kumar Singla, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Davinder Bir Singh, DAG, Punjab.

Mr. Parminder Singh Sekhon, Advocate for the complainant.

-.- JAISHREE THAKUR J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a petition that has been filed for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.200 dated 15.11.2019 under Section 306 IPC registered at Police Station City Budhlada, District Mansa. 2.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had contended that the petitioner and the deceased Gagandeep Kaur both consumed poisonous substance, which led to death of the girl and hospitalization of the petitioner. The poison was taken as the deceased was being forced to marry some one else. The petitioner herein had been directed to join investigation by an order dated 29.11.2019.

3.

Appearance has been caused on behalf of the complainant i.e. father of the deceased. Learned counsel for the complainant as well as the respondent-State submit that the petitioner though admitted on the same day, as the deceased had consumed poison, however, he had got himself admitted in a hospital at Patiala, which is at a distance of 60 kms instead of PANKAJ KUMAR 2020.02.25 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M No.51059 of 2019 -2nearest hospital available to him at Sunam, while also contending that he had got himself admitted late at night i.e. around 11.54 PM and got himself discharged against medical advice. It is further submitted that reading of the summary statement would reflect that he had been admitted in ICU and the investigation that was done would not reveal ingestion of any poisonous substance. It is argued that his phone has been recovered, which would reflect that he had been making phone calls to the family where the deceased had been engaged and therefore, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the fact that petitioner had not consumed poison as had been submitted on 29.11.2019 on the date when his interim bail had been allowed to him and the fact that there was no poison detected in his blood stream, custodial interrogation of the petitioner would be required. Consequently, the instant petition stands dismissed.

(JAISHREE THAKUR) JUDGE February 24, 2020 Pankaj* Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PANKAJ KUMAR 2020.02.25 17:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document