IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. Nos.13226-27 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009 Date of decision : 11.3.2010 Bhupinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent and Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010 Kulwinder Kaur @ Raj @ Pind Kaur …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009. Mr. G.S. Nagra, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. **** S.S. SARON, J. Crl. Misc. Nos.13226-27 of 2010 Crl. Misc. Nos.13226-27 of 2010 and [2] Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010 Statement of Surat Singh (Annexure P2) and statement of Amrik Singh (Annexure P3) attached with the Crl. Misc. applications are taken on record subject to just exceptions. Crl. Misc. applications stand disposed of. Main Case Heard counsel for the parties. This order will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009 filed by Bhupinder Singh and Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010 filed by Kulwinder Kaur @ Raj @ Pind Kaur as they arise out of the same FIR. The petitioners in the respective petitions seek regular bail. The FIR in the case has been registered on 8.4.2009 on the statement of Gurcharan Singh father of the deceased Satnam Kaur. It is alleged by the complainant that his daughter Satnam Kaur was married with Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M- 33930 of 2009) at village Bopara Baj Singh in 1995. After about 6-7 months after the marriage, the complainant took Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M-33930 of 2009) and his daughter Satnam Kaur to Hong Kong. They had been living there. However, for the last about one year, the daughter of the complainant had remained subdued and had been keeping quiet. About six months earlier, the complainant had asked his daughter about this and she Crl. Misc. Nos.13226-27 of 2010 and [3] Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010 informed the complainant that her husband Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M-33930 of 2009) had illicit relations with Rajwant Kaur @ Pinder Kaur (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M- 337 of 2010) and Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M- 33930 of 2009) had been threatening the daughter of the complainant that he would divorce her and marry Rajwant Kaur @ Pinder Kaur (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010). The complainant counselled his son-in-law Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M-33930 of 2009) and he agreed with the complainant but he did not actually take it seriously. Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M-33930 of 2009) had constructed a house at Tarn Taran for keeping Rajwant Kaur @ Pinder Kaur ( petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010). On 5.12.2008, the son-in-law namely Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc.No. M-33930 of 2009) came to India along with his daughter Satnam Kaur and her children. On 3.1.2009, Harsukhdeep Singh @ Pappu called the complainant on phone at Hong Kong and informed him that his aunt Satnam Kaur had died. The complainant informed Harsukhdeep Singh @ Pappu that he could not come to India being a heart patient and he was not feeling well. He said his sons had come and they would perform the last rites of his daughter. The complainant came to India in April, 2009 and he came to know that the daughter of the complainant namely Satnam Kaur had died due to administration of poison. The complainant was shocked and he started enquiring about his death. During the course of inquiry, Amrik Singh son of Kishan Singh came to the complainant at his village for paying condolences. He stated that on 3.1.2009, he Crl. Misc. Nos.13226-27 of 2010 and [4] Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010 was going to village Basarka Gillan through San Sahib road for seeing buffaloes. When he reached a little ahead of godowns, he saw that Pappu and Darshan Singh were holding the arms of Satnam Kaur (daughter of the complainant) in a car parked on the road. Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009) and Rajwant Kaur @ Pinder Kaur (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010) were administering something in her mouth. He stopped and asked them, upon which Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M- 33930 of 2009) stated that she (Satnam Kaur-daughter of the complainant) was having fits and they were giving her medicine. At that time, daughter of the complainant was calm and unconscious. Upon his asking, Satnam Kaur did not give any response. The complainant had full confidence that with an intention of killing his daughter Satnam Kaur, Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009) and Rajwant Kaur @ Pinder Kaur (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010), Darshan Singh (father of Rajwant Kaur @ Pinder Kaur) and Harsukhdeep Singh @ Pappu in connivance with each other administered poison to her and killed her. On these allegations, the FIR was registered. It may be noticed that the incident in the present case had occurred on 3.1.2009 when the daughter of the complainant died. At that time, the sons of the complainant had come for the last rites of the deceased Satnam Kaur. At that time, no foul play was suspected by them. Later the FIR in the case was registered on 8.4.2009 i.e. after three months of the incident. Bhupinder Singh (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009) was arrested on 12.4.2009 and Crl. Misc. Nos.13226-27 of 2010 and [5] Crl. Misc. No. M-33930 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010 Kulwinder Kaur @ Raj @ Pind Kaur (petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M- 337 of 2010) was arrested on 9.4.2009. Since then, they are in custody. The charges in the case have not been framed and the prosecution is to examine 20 witnesses. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The death of Satnam Kaur has occurred due to administering ‘organic phosphorous’ poison. However, the prosecution is to establish its case by leading evidence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient if the petitioners in the respective petitions are granted the concession of bail pending trial. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. applications (i.e. Crl. Misc. No.M- 33930 of 2009 and Crl. Misc. No. M-337 of 2010) are allowed and the petitioners namely Bhupinder Singh and Kulwinder Kaur @ Raj @ Pind Kaur in the respective petitions on their furnishing personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amristar shall be admitted to bail. The petitioners in the respective petitions shall surrender their passports and shall not leave the country without the prior permission of the Court. Nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 11, 2010 amit