CRM No.M-22840 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-22.9.2010 Mohinder Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Brijeshwar Singh Bhalla, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The brief facts, which need a necessary mention for deciding the present petition for regular bail, are that this case was registered on the statement of complainant Gurcharan Singh, which reads as under:- “My younger brother Gurwinder Singh was married with Paramjit Kaur daughter of Ralla Singh of Manu Ke from about last 10/12 years and have got two sons. Karamjit Kaur wife of Gurwinder Singh developed illicit relations with Sheera Singh son of Binder Singh Majbi Sikh and people knew about it. Gurwinder Singh used to stop Karamjit Kaur but Karamjit Kaur and Sheera Singh did not stop. Mohinder Kaur mother of Paramjit Kaur always took side of her daughter. Yesterday on 25.5.2009 Mohinder Kaur came in the evening and both the mother and daughter had a dispute with Gurwinder Singh and told him that this will continue and if you are having self respect then you should consume some thing and get rid of them. Thereafter Karamjit Kaur and her mother went to house of Ruldu Singh who was go in between in the said marriage. I and Gurwinder Singh went after them where Sheera Singh also came. Karamjit Kaur, Mohinder Kaur and Sheera Singh had CRM No.M-22840 of 2010 2 a quarrel with Gurwinder Singh and gave beatings to him and Sheera Singh openly stating that he would keep your wife as his lady. Both of us came back at 2.00 a.m. Today at 9.00 a.m. I again went to the house of Gurwinder Singh where our younger brother Raju @ Manjit Singh is having the adjoining house. I and Manjit Sigh tried to make understand Gurwinder Singh but he stated that he was tired of the activity of Karamjit Kaur, her mother Mohinder Kaur and Sheera Singh and they do not listen to him. Whenever they speak they always say that you may consume something and they gave beating to me in the night also. My saying this he went inside into his room and after sometime came back and stated that he was fed up of his wife Karamjit, mother in law Mohinder Kaur and Sheera Singh and further stated that he has consumed the spray and all the three of them shall be responsible for his death. We took him to private doctors in village Nihal Singh Wala for his treatment where he died. We brought the dead body of Gurwinder Singh to the village where some respectables asked us not to take any action but I left the dead body there and was coming to inform you when you met me on the road of Madhe Ke, Nihal Sigh Wala.” 2. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to complainant Gurcharan Singh that his brother Gurwinder Singh committed suicide and the petitioners alongwith her daughter Karamjit Kaur abetted the commission of crime. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.51 dated 26.5.2009, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 306 IPC by the police of Police Station Nihal Singh Wala, Distt.Moga. 3. Having exercised her right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, the petitioner has directed the present petition for regular bail in the present case, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone CRM No.M-22840 of 2010 3 through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this regard. 6. The only allegations against the petitioner are that Karamjit Kaur wife of the deceased developed illicit relations with one Sheera Singh son of Binder Singh and when the deceased objected, then his wife Karamjit Kaur and mother-in-law Mohinder Kaur petitioner created such an atmosphere, which compelled the deceased to consume some poisonous substance. The petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased and was residing in her own village Manu Ke, while the deceased was residing in Madheke (different village). No overt act is attributed to her by the prosecution. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that the petitioner was earlier allowed bail by the trial Court, vide order dated 7.9.2009, but her bail was cancelled on the ground that she has concealed the facts at the time of decision of first bail application, vide order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure P1) and was sent to jail. Since then, she is in judicial custody. The conclusion of trial would naturally take long time. She is an old lady and to me, no useful purpose will be served in further detaining her in jail. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 8. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as indicated here-in-above, to my mind, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 9. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 10. Needless to say that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on CRM No.M-22840 of 2010 4 the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. 12. Thus, the petition is disposed of accordingly. 22.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge