IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-33814 of 2011 Date of Decision 16.11.2011 Bikram Singh --Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Atul Lakhanpal, Sr.Advocate, with Mr.Arjun Lakhanpal,Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.K.D.Sachdeva,Addl.A.G.Punjab Mr.Navkiran Singh,Advocate, for the complainant RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J: (Oral) This is a petition for anticipatory bail in a case registered vide FIR No.155 dated 29.10.2010, under Section 306 of the IPC to which Section 304-B was added vide DDR No.15 dated 13.10.2011 at Police Station Nathana, District Bathinda. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner got married with Gurdip Kaur on 02.4.2010. She died on 05.8.2010 because of poisoning. At the time of inquest, Gurpal Singh, father of the deceased did not raise any suspicion against any one much-less the petitioner. However, on 30.9.2010, he made a complaint to the S.S.P, Bathinda on the basis of which the present FIR was registered under Section 306 IPC. The petitioner was arrested and was released on regular bail on 06.12.2010. Thereafter, the complainant filed CRM -M- 35100 of 2010 in this Court CRM-M-33814 of 2011 -2- under Section 482 of the Code of criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,' Cr.P.C.') for seeking direction to hand over the investigation of this case either to some independent agency or to be supervised by some senior Gazetted Officer. In the said petition, an interim order was passed by this Court directing the S.P.Bathinda to supervise the investigation. Pursuant to that, offence under Section 306 IPC was converted into Section 304-B IPC on the ground that the petitioner had allegedly harassing the deceased while demanding a bigger car. Learned counsel has submited that there is no change in the case of the prosecution except for the change of provisions of law in which he has been booked. In reply, learned counsel for the State, assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted that as per post mortem report, as many as eight injuries have been found on the various parts of the body of deceased. It is further submitted that the petitioner had managed to get the case registered under Section 306 of the IPC, otherwise, it should have been registered under Section 304-B of IPC from the very beginning. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he had never managed anything with the police, rather the complainant has taken a false stand through out. In this regard, he has submitted that a complaint (Annexure P5) dated 3.10.2011 was made by the complainant to the DGP, for handing over the investigation to some independent agency. He has further submitted that he had moved an application (Annexure P-6) under Right to Information Act, 2005 for the purpose of getting a copy of the said complaint but vide letter (Annexure P7), he has been informed that no such complaint has been received in the office of the DGP, Punjab. CRM-M-33814 of 2011 -2- He further submits that the complaint (Annexure P8) was also moved by the complainant on 18.12.2010 to take action against the petitioner. He had moved an application (Annexure P-9) under Right to Information Act to take a copy of the said complaint but vide Annexure P-10, the petitioner was informed that no such application allegedly moved by the complainant has been found to have been received in the office. He submitted that conduct of the complainant is not above board as he is bent upon to punish the petitioner even before his trial. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties but keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and without making any observation on the merit, I am of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of anticipatory bail. In view thereof, the present petition is allowed and it is directed that in the event of arrest of the petitioner, he shall be released on bail by the Arresting/Investigating Officer on his furnishing bail bonds to his satisfaction. He shall also abide by the provisions contained in Section 438 (2) Cr. P.C. 16.11.2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) rr JUDGE