IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.M.P.(M) No.331 of 2008 Decided on: April 11, 2008. Surinder …Petitioner. VERSUS State of Himachal Pradesh ….Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1No For the Petitioner: Mr Chandernarayana Singh, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr A.K.Bansal, Addl.A.G. Kuldip Singh, Judge (Oral) This is an application under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for releasing the petitioner on bail in F.I.R.No.195 registered on 4.7.2007 at Police Station, Manali under Sections 302, 201 and 34 I.P.C. The status report has been filed. 2. Heard and perused the record. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on the basis of statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. of complainant Lal Singh recorded on 4.7.2007, F.I.R. was registered at Police Station, Manali. According to the complainant, his daughter Sushma about 7 years Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes …2… ago was married to Surinder petitioner and daughter Shreya aged about six years was born to Sushma from that wedlock. The father in law of his daughter had died one year ago. Thereafter his son-in-law started ill treating his daughter. On 28.6.2007 at about 9 p.m. his son-in-law made a telephonic call to his elder daughter Sunita asking her to take back her sister as she was not fit to be kept by him. Thereafter, Sushma on telephone told Sunita that Surinder was troubling her too much. It has become difficult for her to stay in the house. She requested her sister to send their father (complainant) at 17 Mile. The complainant went to 17 Mile on 29.6.2007. The son-in-law of the complainant told that he had some altercation with his wife. The complainant enquired about his daughter Sushma, the petitioner told that she had gone out in the morning without telling where she was going. A report of missing of Sushma was lodged at the Police Station, she was searched in the relations but her whereabouts could not be traced. The son-in-law of the complainant had been harassing Sushma, who came to his daughter Sunita twice or thrice and stayed with her but on persuasion, she was sent back. The complainant suspected that because of harassment by petitioner, his daughter might have committed suicide or she …3… has been murdered. A case under Sections 498-A, 306 IPC was accordingly registered. During investigation, the dead body of Sushma was found near camping side Delu Nala, river Beas. The photographs of the dead body were taken. The post mortem of the dead body of Sushma was got conducted. In the opinion of the doctors, deceased died of head injury. There is no evidence of death due to drowning. However, final opinion would be given after chemical report. On the basis of post mortem report Section 302 IPC was also added. 3. The house of Surinder Kumar petitioner at 17 Mile was searched, spot map was prepared. The statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. The petitioner was arrested on 4.7.2007 at 8.30 p.m. During investigation, Surinder Kumar got recovered pant, shirt having blood stains which he was wearing at the time of incident. Raju Pal servant of the petitioner was interrogated and he was arrested on 12.7.2007. He made disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. He further stated that on 28.6.2007 after taking meals he went in the ground floor of the house. At about 9.30 p.m. Surinder Kumar petitioner came wearing vest and underwear and enquired whether Sushma was there. He told that Sushma was not there and petitioner left the place. …4… After some time petitioner again came there and demanded torch, he gave torch to the petitioner and the petitioner again left the place with torch. He heard some noise in the stairs which are on the back side of the house. He went to the store room and saw that Surinder was pulling down his wife in the stairs by holding her from arms. He laid Sushma on the lawn. Surinder called him from the room and both of them put the dead body of Sushma in Quallis bearing registration No.HP-58-1888 and they proceeded 1 ½ kilometers towards Kullu on national highway 21. Thereafter, both of them had thrown the dead body of Sushma after taking out from the dickey of the vehicle in river Beas and brought the vehicle back. Raju on the asking of Surinder cleaned the place and had thrown the clothes back in river Beas. Raju accused identified various places during investigation. As against Raju Sections 201 and 34 IPC were added. The FSL Junga experts also inspected the spot. During investigation further evidence was collected. FSL Junga did not detect any poison. The call details of mobile No.93189-33044 were taken. During investigation, it has come that petitioner Surinder Kumar used to harass his wife Sushma. On 28.6.2007 at about 9 p.m. Sushma was given beatings which fact was told by Sushma to her …5… sister on telephone. The petitioner Surinder caught hold Sushma with her hair and struck her against the wall and killed her. He dragged the dead body through stairs and laid the dead body in the lawn and thereafter in vehicle No.HP-58-1888 and ultimately threw the body in river Beas. The dead body of Sushma was found on 4.7.2007. It has been established during investigation that Surinder has committed offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC and Raju Pal under Sections 201 and 34 IPC. The challan has been presented in the Court on 29.9.2007. The case is now fixed for prosecution evidence on 12th, 13th and 14th August, 2008. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the case against the petitioner is false. He has committed no offence. At the most from the prosecution case it emerges that the relations between the husband and wife were not good, therefore, only on suspicion petitioner has been implicated in the case. There is no eye witness of the incident. The petitioner is permanent resident of 17 Mile and he will not flee from justice in case he is released on bail. The custody of petitioner is not required. The co- accused Raju Pal has been released on bail. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted …6… that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to bail. The learned Additional Advocate General has opposed the bail application. He has submitted that there are serious allegations against the petitioner who has murdered his own wife. The involvement of the petitioner in the commission of the offence has been established during investigation. In view of the gravity of offence, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. The co accused Raju Pal had seen the petitioner when he brought down the dead body of Sushma in the stairs by dragging. As per medical opinion, the deceased died of head injury. The petitioner being the husband owes explanation how deceased received injury more particularly when husband and wife were in their house at the time of incident. The case of Raju Pal is entirely different and petitioner is not entitled to bail on the ground that Raju Pal has been granted bail. 5. There are serious allegations against the petitioner for commission of offence under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC for murdering his own wife. As per medical evidence, the deceased died of head injury and not drowning. The petitioner being the husband is expected to know how the deceased sustained injury on the head and how the dead body of the deceased was found in the river. The …7… conduct of petitioner is questionable. The petitioner, if released on bail, is likely to influence the witnesses. The case is fixed for evidence in the trial Court. In view of the seriousness of the case and allegations against the petitioner, he is not entitled to bail. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. 6. The observations made in the order shall not be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the case. April 11, 2008 ( Kuldip Singh ), J. (soni)