CRM.M-20372 of 2009 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Decided on Dec 17,2009. Mohinder Singh and another -- Petitioners vs. State of Punjab and another --Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.M.K.Singla,Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Abhishek Chautala,A.AG,Punjab. Mr.Ajay Pal Singh,Advocate,for the complainant/ respondent No.2. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This order shall dispose of two bail petitions bearing CRM -M 20372 of 2009 ( Mohinder Singh and another Vs. State of Punjab and another) and CRM-M 30847 of 2009 (Joginder Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur and another Vs. State of Punjab and another) in which the petitioners have filed application under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.'), for anticipatory bail in complaint case No. 122 dated 22.03.2007, under Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC in which the petitioners (here-in-above) have been summoned vide order dated 3.12.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak. CRM-M 20372 of 2009 has been filed by Mohinder Singh ( father-in-law) and Amrik Singh (husband) of the deceased Lakhwinder Kaur on 28.7.2009, whereas CRM-M 30847 of 2009 has CRM.M-20372 of 2009 2 been filed by Joginder Kaur @ Paramjit Kaur and Kuldeep Singh (Jethani and Jeth respectively of deceased Lakhwinder Kaur) on 3.11.2009. On the statement of learned counsel for the petitioners in CRM-M 30847of 2009, the said case was ordered to be listed with CRM-M 20372 of 2009 in which there was no interim order, whereas in CRM-M 20372 of 2009, notice of motion was issued on 07.8.2009 and arrest of the petitioners was stayed on1.9.2009. Brief facts of the case are that deceased Lakhwinder Kaur was married to Amrik Singh (petitioner No.2. in CRM-M 20372 of 2009) on 3.2.1999. They had two children i.e. Sehajpreet Kaur (daughter) aged 8/9 years and Simranjit Singh (son) aged about 4/5 years. According to the petitioners, Lakhwinder Kaur was suffering from fever, loose motion and vomiting for which she was given treatment at village Makror Sahib for about four days and thereafter she was admitted in Grover Hospital and Maternity Home, Tohana, on 31.5.2006 at 9.p.m, where she got treatment for two days. She died on 02.6.2006 at 6 p.m. in the said hospital after 7 years of her marriage. At the time of her death, both father and mother of the deceased and her husband were present. Her parents did not raise any suspicion about her death. However, it is submitted that later on Jeet Singh, father of the deceased lodged one FIR No. 65 dated 27.7.2006 under Sections 302,148,149,201 IPC at Police Station, Khanauri, District Sangrur, against the petitioners in both the petitions, in which the investigation was conducted by Inspector Shamsher Singh, SHO,Police Station, Khanauri, who found the allegations to be false CRM.M-20372 of 2009 3 and subsequently submitted a cancellation report. But the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, did not accept the cancellation report and directed for further investigation as per the directions given by the Hon'ble High Court that the investigation should not be conducted by an officer not below the rank of D.S.P. It is further submitted that D.S.P.Moonak, who was directed to conduct the investigation recused himself on the ground that he had cleared the earlier cancellation report submitted by Inspector Shamsher Singh. Therefore, the investigation was handed over to D.S.P., Lehra, who again submitted the cancellation report to the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak. It is submitted by Mr.M.K.Singla, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in both the petitions that after cancellation report was submitted by D.S.P, Lehra, the petitioners have been summoned vide order dated 3.12.2008 passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, through non-bailable warrants in the complaint. Apprehending their arrest, the petitioners had applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by learned Addl.Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide her order dated 05.3.2009. At the time,when arrest of the petitioners was stayed in CRM-M 20372 of 2009, argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioners was noticed to the extent that next date for appearance before the Court below is 02.9.2009 when the matter with regard to cancellation of FIR shall also be considered as both FIR case and complaint case were clubbed together. It was also noticed that CRM.M-20372 of 2009 4 learned counsel for the petitioners had argued that Lakhwinder Kaur deceased died a natural death as per her medical record. During the pendency of the main petition, the petitioners had filed CRM-M 30847 of 2009 in order to place on record order passed in CRM-M 50022 of 2006 on an application filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. by the present petitioners Mohinder Singh and his wife Lakhwinder Kaur in a case FIR No. 65 dated 27.7.2006 registered under Sections 302,148,149 IPC, at Police Station, Khanauri, District Sangrur, which was dismissed observing as under:- “This is petition for grant of anticipatory bail. Case is for the offence under Sections 302/148/149/201 IPC. Petitioners happen to be parents of the husband of the deceased. Counsel for the petitioners argued that it is a false case. He argues that the FIR was registered after one month, 27 days of the occurrence. Petitioners are parents of the husband and the case is serious in nature. I do not find any good ground to grant anticipatory bail. Dismissed”. The main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that cancellation report in the FIR case had already been submitted which is likely to be accepted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak. The case was adjourned time and again in order to await the order of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak. On 8.10.2009, this Court had also passed the following orders:- “It is admitted by the learned counsel for the complainant that matter with regard to cancellation of FIR is now under consideration of the Ilaqa Magistrate, who has issued summoning order in the complaint filed by respondent No.2. Learned counsel for CRM.M-20372 of 2009 5 the State has informed that the matter with regard to cancellation of FIR is fixed before the Court below for today. Adjourned to 5.11.2009. It is expected that the Ilaqa Magistrate shall take a decision on the application for cancellation of FIR moved by the prosecution before the adjourned date. Interim order to continue”. The petitioners filed another CRM 60127 of 2009 under Section 482 Cr.P.C in order to place on record order passed by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, dated 04.11.2009 in terms of the order dated 8.10.2009 passed by this Court. The said application was allowed and the document was taken on record. Learned counsel for the respondent/State assisted by learned counsel for the complainant/respondent No.2 has submitted that main plank of the petitioners was the cancellation report in the FIR which has not been accepted by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Moonak, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail in an offence of murder and causing disappearance of the evidence besides criminal conspiracy. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with their assistance. Learned lower Court while rejecting the bail application vide its order dated 05.3.2009 had observed that the dead body of the deceased was cremated without post mortem and the medical history of the deceased was changed as the timings were converted from morning to evening. CRM.M-20372 of 2009 6 Be that as it may, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case but keeping in view the nature of offence, I do not find it a case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, thus both the petitions are hereby dismissed. Dec 17,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge