Criminal Misc.-M No. 32060 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 32060 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 15.11.2011 Sonika Rani @ Sonia ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ..Respondent CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Jagjit Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Anmol Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Mehar Singh Rai, Advocate for the complainant. …… RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, who is sought to be arrested in FIR No. 81 dated 15.4.2011 initially registered under Sections 302, 201 IPC and later on under Sections 120-B, 34 IPC at Police Station Rania, District Sirsa after dead body of Mukhtiar Singh was recovered from Ghaghar river. In the FIR, which was initially registered on the complaint of Tara Singh, no one was arrayed as accused. Mukhtiar Singh was missing from his house from 10/11.4.2011 and his dead body was found on 13.4.2011. The petitioner is sought to be arrested on the basis of extra judicial confession made by Satnam Singh one of the relatives of the petitioner before Dalip Singh and Jeet Singh stating that he along with Shingara Singh-father of the petitioner, Bhajan Singh- brother of the petitioner, Sharwan Singh-Jija of the petitioner and the petitioner had committed murder of Mukhtiar Singh. On the basis of statement of Dalip Singh recorded by the police on 14.7.2011, Satnam Singh, Shingara Singh and Bhajan Singh were arrested on 14.7.2011 whereas the petitioner has prayed for grant of pre-arrest bail. Criminal Misc.-M No. 32060 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. She has no concern with the murder of Mukhtiar Singh. There was no reason for Satnam Singh to make extra judicial confession before Dalip Singh and Jeet Singh three months after the recovery of the dead body when till date neither anyone was named in the FIR as accused nor in investigation the police could find out that anyone was involved in the murder. Story as projected from alleged extra judicial confession of Satnam Singh before Dalip Singh and disclosure statements of Shingara Singh and Bhajan Singh is that the petitioner was having illicit relations with Mukhtiar Singh and wanted to marry him, however, as he was not having any landed property the family refused to marry her with Mukhtiar Singh. Apprehending that Mukhtiar Singh may create trouble in the marriage of the petitioner with someone else, they all conspired together and murdered Mukhtiar Singh. He further submitted that there is no material with the investigating agency except the extra judicial confession or the statements of accused recorded in custody to link the petitioner with the murder of the Mukhtiar Singh. He further submitted that father, brother and one relative of the petitioner, who were arrested on the basis of the statement of Dalip Singh on 14.7.20011, are still in custody. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from SI Rajbir Singh submitted that the petitioner along with other accused had conspired together to murder Mukhtiar Singh. Mukhtiar Singh was having two mobile phones, one of which had been given to the petitioner. They were in touch regularly. Even prior to his death, both had talked to each other, however, he submitted that besides extra judicial confession of Satnam Singh and disclosure statements of Shingara Singh and Bhajan Singh and the recovery made on the basis thereof, there is no material with the investigating agency. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the petitioner is root cause for the crime committed by her family members. In fact, Bhajan Singh had taken Mukhtiar Singh to their tubewell on motorcycle where all other accused were present along with the petitioner. Mukhtiar Singh was having three mobile phones, one of which was given to the Criminal Misc.-M No. 32060 of 2011 3 petitioner. Two mobile phones were recovered from the cot of Mukhtiar Singh. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that at present the investigating agency does not have any other material except the extra judicial confession made by Satnam Singh before Dalip Singh and Jeet Singh three months after the recovery of the dead body and disclosure statements made by Shingara Singh and Bhahan Singh, who are in custody to link the petitioner with the crime; recovery of motorcycle and tractor have also been made on the basis of those statements; three accused, namely, father, brother and one relative of the petitioner, who were named in terms of statement of Dalip Singh on the basis of extra judicial confession of Satnam Singh, were arrested and are still in custody, in my opinion, the peti- tioner is not required to be taken into custody for interrogation. The peti- tioner is directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 23.11.2011 at 10.00 a.m. to join investigation and in case of arrest, she shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Investigating Officer. She shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for fur- ther investigation. She shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438 (2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (RAJESH BINDAL) JUDGE 15.11.2011 sharmila