Crl. Misc. No. M- 30828 of 2011 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No. M- 30828 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: November 18, 2011 Isha Rani and another ---Petitioners versus State of Punjab and another ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.Jaskaran S.Attar, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab *** Gurdev Singh, J. The petitioners, Isha Rani and Roop Rani, have filed this petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the issuance of a direction to the Officer-in-Charge of Police Station, Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib, to release them on bail in the event of their arrest in FIR No.78 dated 10.9.2011 registered in that police station under Sections 304/34 IPC According to them, the allegations made in the FIR are vague and general in nature and they have been falsely implicated. No prima facie case is made out against them. In fact the deceased was habitual drunkard and no injury was received by him in the alleged occurrence. Only altercation took place between the deceased and Som Nath, co-accused, and thereafter, he went to his house in drunken condition and might have Crl. Misc. No. M- 30828 of 2011 -2- received the injuries at that place and it was on account of that reason that his family members had not immediately taken him to the hospital and he was removed to the hospital on the next day. They are coming in judicial custody and it is not the version of the complainant that they were armed with any weapon at the time of alleged occurrence. No case is made out under Sections 304/34 IPC. There is delay in lodging the FIR, which was registered on 10.9.2011. It was on the statement of Avtar Singh, complainant, that the present FIR was registered. He narrated therein that on 6.9.2011 at about 3.30 p.m., his father Bhagh Singh, deceased, was coming to his house with Rehri. When he tried to pass that Rehri in front of the house of Som Nath @ Billa, he could not succeed as bricks and sand had been lying at that place. He asked that accused to remove sand on one side so that he may pass the Rehri, who taunted the deceased that it was just a Rehri and not an aeroplane and thereafter, an altercation took place between them. That accused started beating the deceased. In the meanwhile, both the present petitioners also came to that place, who joined that accused and started beating the deceased. After causing injuries, all these accused escaped from the spot with their weapons. All these facts were disclosed to the complainant by his wife, who took the deceased to the hospital on 7.9.2011 where he was given first aid and was referred to PGI where he died on 10.9.2011. It has been submitted by counsel for the petitioners that no specific injury has been attributed to these petitioners, who are women, and that there is delay in the Medico Legal examination of the deceased and the lodging of the FIR and that delay itself creates a doubt in the version of the Crl. Misc. No. M- 30828 of 2011 -3- complainant. According to him, in such type of circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to the benefit of bail. This occurrence was witnessed by Gurmail Kaur and Parminder Kaur, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. during the investigation. Both of them narrated that the deceased was caught hold of and beaten by all the accused. The petitioners have annexed the photo copy of the Medico Legal Report of the deceased. As per that report, he was Medico Legally examined on 7.9.2011 at 1.30 p.m. During that medical examination, seven injuries were found on his person, which were stated to be the result of a blunt weapon. After death of the deceased, post mortem examination was performed on his dead body. During that examination also, 11 injuries were found on his person. Fracture and dis-location of the spinal cord was also found. The cause of death was given as Vertebro spinal damage consequent to blunt trauma to neck. The accusation against the petitioner is well founded. From the evidence collected during the investigation, it can prima facie be said that the petitioners, in furtherance of their common intention, caused injuries to the deceased, which resulted in his death. For such a grave offence, for which the punishment of imprisonment for life is prescribed, the petitioners are not entitled to the benefit of bail at this stage. Petition is dismissed accordingly. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE November 18, 2011 PARAMJIT