IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-16615 of 2009 Date of decision : July 14, 2009 Gurbax Singh ....Petitioner versus Ravinder Kaur ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Sandeep Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions namely Criminal Misc. No. M-16615 of 2009 filed by Gurbax Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-16797 of 2009 filed by Harbans Singh, both seeking anticipatory bail in criminal complaint Annexure P/1 instituted by Ravinder Kaur respondent under sections 302, 506 IPC, in which both the petitioners have been summoned for offences under section 304 IPC vide order dated 4.5.2009, Annexure P/2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Version of the respondent is that her husband Varinder Singh working as Electrician came home on 9.9.2007 from duty and told that he had suffered some head injury and wanted to rest. He did not disclose Criminal Misc. No. M-16615 of 2009 -2- anything to the family members as to how he suffered the injury. On 12.9.2007, he became unconscious and was removed to hospital. Ultimately, he died on 16.9.2007. Gurnam Singh father of the deceased made report vide DDR No. 13 dated 17.9.2007 Annexure P/6 mentioning that the death was natural and sudden and nobody was at fault and the informant did not want any action against anybody. However, Gurnam Singh moved application dated 20.9.2007 (Annexure P/7) to Senior Superintendent of Police mentioning that the DDR was not correctly recorded and investigation regarding the cause of death of his son be conducted and the accused, if any found, be punished. Thereafter, since police did not take appropriate action inspite of several visits, the complainant sent application dated 12.4.2008 (Annexure P/10) to Director General of Police mentioning that scooter of the deceased had hit the car of the petitioners who had, therefore, given beatings to the deceased leading to his death. It was so alleged on the basis of some eye witness account but names of the eye witnesses were not mentioned even in this application. In the criminal complaint dated 9.1.2009, Balraj Singh and Nirmal Singh were mentioned to be eye witnesses of the occurrence. It was also alleged in the complaint that both the petitioners made extra judicial confession before Jagjit Singh on 28.4.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that in fact, petitioner Harbans Singh had instituted a criminal complaint, Annexure P/4 on 18.8.2007 against Jatinder Singh brother of respondent- complainant herein and others under sections 302 and 364 IPC read with section 34 IPC and the said accused have been ordered to be summoned for the said offences vide order dated 23.12.2008 (Annexure P/5). It is Criminal Misc. No. M-16615 of 2009 -3- contended that on account thereof, the petitioners have been falsely implicated in the instant complaint. It is also argued that in the first version contained in DDR (Annexure P/6), the death was mentioned to be natural by the father of the deceased. Even in subsequent application dated 20.9.2007, nothing was mentioned except that the cause of death of the deceased be properly investigated. The petitioners were named for the first time in application dated 12.4.2008 i.e. 7 months after the occurrence. Even then, names of the eye witnesses were not mentioned. It is contended that the alleged eye witnesses were for the first time mentioned in criminal complaint dated 9.1.2009 i.e. after 13 months of the occurrence. Keeping in view all the circumstances but without meaning to express any opinion on the merits, both the instant petitions are allowed and the petitioners shall be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of committing Magistrate/trial court. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 14, 2009 Judge 'dalbir'