Criminal Misc. No. M-27710 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** Criminal Misc. No. M-27710 of 2009 Date of Decision:12.10.2009 Dalbir Kaur .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARBANS LAL Present:- Mr. K.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the complainant. Mr. Arshvinder Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** HARBANS LAL, J. This petition has been moved by Dalbir Kaur under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking her regular bail in case FIR No.67 dated 23.6.2009 registered under Sections 304-B/34 of IPC at Police Station Sri Hargobindpur, District Gurdaspur. The facts in brief are that Jagtar Singh made statement before the police in the terms that “I married my daughter Sukhraj Kaur to Jagpreet Singh s/o Manjinder Singh on 12.12.08. In dowry, I gave articles more than my status including 20 tolas gold and jewellery apart from Alto Car bearing registration No.PB-18-N-4720. After about one month, my daughter was harassed and beaten up by her father-in-law Manjinder Singh, mother-in- law Dalbir Kaur (referring to the petitioner), husband Jagpreet Singh and brother-in-law Gurpreet Singh @ Gopi to bring more dowry. I along with Criminal Misc. No. M-27710 of 2009 -2- respectables of my village went to make them to understand the things, but they did not stop harassing my daughter and said that we have given a small car in dowry and asked her to tell her father to give them a big car. My daughter kept telling everything on telephone. I told my daughter's father- in-law Manjinder Singh and mother-in-law Dalbir Kaur to wait for sometime and assured that I will buy a big car. About one and a half month ago, my son-in-law and his father started demanding Rs.1 lac from me and they gave beatings to my daughter for that. I took Rs.60,000/- from my commission agent Pawan Kumar resident of Qadiyan. I along with my brother's son Joginder Singh Sarpanch went to their house in Village Bhamri and gave it to them and promised to give the rest of the amount later on. My daughter Sukhraj Kaur telephoned me day before yesterday and told me that her in-laws' family is harassing her and said that they do not want to keep the car and that they will leave it at my paternal house. I kept telling them that after harvesting of paddy crop, I will get them another car but they did not agree and went away. Today, around 10 o'clock, we received a call from our daughter that “Take me away from here or these people will kill me.” I along with my son Amritpal Singh reached village Bhamri by car at my daughter's house where she was vomiting and told me that her father-in- law Manjinder Singh, mother-in-law Dalbir Kaur, husband Jagpreet Singh and brother-in-law Gurpreet Singh alias Gopi together forcibly gave her poisonous substance. I and my son took her to the government hospital, where the doctors declared her dead. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection. Criminal Misc. No. M-27710 of 2009 -3- This is a case in which palpably the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required. In re: State Represented By the C.B.I v. Anil Sharma, 1997(4) Recent Criminal Reports (Criminal) 268 (SC), it has been held as under:- “We find force in the submission of the CBI that custodial interrogation is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well ensconced with a favourable order under Section 438 of the Code. In a case like this, effective interrogation of a suspected person is of tremendous advantage in disinterring many useful informations and also materials which would have been concealed. Success in such interrogation would elude if the suspected person knows that he is well protected and insulated by a pre-arrest bail order during the time he is interrogated. Very often interrogation in such a condition would reduce to a mere ritual. The argument that the custodial interrogation is fraught with the danger of the person being subjected to third-degree methods need not be countenanced, for, such an argument can be advanced by all accused in all criminal cases. The Court has to presume that responsible police officers would conduct themselves in a responsible manner and that those entrusted with the task of disinterring offences would not conduct themselves as offenders.” The provisions of Section 438 ibid cannot be invoked where custodial interrogation is necessary or may hamper proper investigation. A Criminal Misc. No. M-27710 of 2009 -4- Court considering an application under this Section must strike a balance between the rights of an accused and the duties and obligation conferred upon an investigating agency. Considering the facts of the present case in the light of the provisions of Section 438 ibid, I am of the considered opinion that the present petition merits dismissal. Thus, this petition is dismissed. October 12, 2009 ( HARBANS LAL ) renu JUDGE