Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gunita Alias Gunita Rani And Others vs State Of Punjab on 23 July, 2024
Author: Anoop Chitkara
Bench: Anoop Chitkara
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849
CRM-M-25545-2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-25545-2024
Reserved on: 16.07.2024
Pronounced on: 23.07.2024
Gunita @ Gunita Rani and others ...Pe oners
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA
Present: Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate,
for the pe oners.
Mr. Gurpartap Singh Bhullar, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Harsimran Singh Sidhu, Advocate for
Mr. Kuldip Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
****
ANOOP CHITKARA, J.
FIR No. Dated Police Sta1on Sec1ons 41 20.03.2024 Sadar Sri Muktsar Sahib, 306, 506, 34 IPC District Sri Muktsar Sahib
1. The pe oners apprehending arrest in the FIR cap oned above, have come up before this Court under Sec on 438 CrPC seeking an cipatory bail.
2. In paragraph 16 of the bail pe on, the accused declares that they have no criminal antecedents.
3. The prosecu on's case is being taken from reply dated 11.07.2024 filed by the concerned Deputy Superintendent of Police, which reads as follows:
3. That the law was set in mo on by Rakesh Kumar son of Chiman Lal suffered his statement to the police of P.S. Sadar Muktsar Sahib on 16-03-2024 to the effect that he has been working as conductor at Punjab Roadways Depot at Sri Muktsar Sahib. He was married with Gunita Rani d/o Kashmir Singh r/o Tarobari about 3 years before. His wife started saying for last 1-1 ½ years that she would not live with his parents. Due to this reason his marital discord arose with his wife Gunita and she went to her parental house to live. His In-laws made 1 1 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:40 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849 CRM-M-25545-2024 complaint with the police of PP Ladhuka. Panchayat was convened to resolve the dispute but efforts could not yield any posi ve result. In another complaint of his In laws at Women Cell Fazilka, he was directed to return the gold jewelry of his wife on 18-3-2024, but the girl side was demanding 3½ tolla of gold whereas he had only 02 tollas of his wife. Therea6er his mother in law Pasho along with present pe oners started threatening them to implicate in a FIR under dowry law and to eliminate them. On the relevant day of 16-3-
2024, when he was on his duty and returning from Ferozepur to Muktsar, his cousin Raman Kumar informed him through mobile phone about the missing of his father Chiman Singh. He further disclosed to the complainant that when he (Raman Kumar) made a phone to his father Chiman Lal, he narrated about the humilia on and harassment from the side of his In-laws. The deceased Chiman Lal on phone informed that he was si:ng at the side of Ladhuwala Canals and will commit suicide by jumping in canals. The complainant parked his bus at Muktsar Depot and came at Ladhuwala Canals by bus. Where he found motor cycle of his father parked at the bank of canals and recovered suicide note of his father from the side bag of his motor cycle. Perusal of this le;er, the deceased had held present pe oners and their mother Pasho, responsible for his suicide.
4. That on the basis of statement and suicide note of Chiman Lal, DDR No.38 dated 16.03.2024 was registered for the purpose of informa on and verifica on. On 20.03.2024, the informa on received at Police Sta on that the dead body of Chiman Singh father of Rakesh Kumar was recovered from the Gang Canal near Sadhu wala head, P.S Sadar Ganganagar, finding prima facie offence u/s 306/506/34 IPC made out against present pe oners and their mother Pasho, accordingly the inves ga on was launched with the registra on of FIR No.41 (supra)."
4. Pe oners' counsel prays for bail by imposing any stringent condi ons. Pe oners' counsel argued that the custodial inves ga on would serve no purpose whatsoever, and the pre-trial incarcera on would cause an irreversible injus ce to the pe oners and family.
5. Counsel for the pe oners seeks bail on the ground that the allega ons are bald and the pe oners did not abet the deceased to commit suicide. In para 4 of the 2 2 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849 CRM-M-25545-2024 pe on, it has been men oned that there were temperamental differences between pe oner No.1-Gunita @ Guna Rani and complainant i.e. her husband, who le> her at the maternal house of pe oner No. 1 and never came to reconcile the same. Kashmir Singh-father of pe oners also tried to convince the complainant and his family members but they were adamant on dowry demands due to which they even gave bea ngs to pe oner No.1. Counsel for the pe oners submits that a compromise had taken place between both the families but complainant party never performed their part due to which a complaint dated 22.02.2024 was wri?en by pe oner No.1 to S.S.P., Fazilka prior to the alleged suicide by Chiman Singh in which she informed about the conduct of the complainant and his family members. The specific allega ons were made against sister-in-law and mother-in-law that they had taken her 3-4 tollas of gold and also about her in-laws giving bea ngs to her. Counsel for the pe oner submits that pe oners No. 2 and 3 are being roped in the case because they are real brother of pe oner No. 1.
6. State counsel opposes the bail and has referred to the suicide note, as per which, Chiman Singh father of complainant and father-in-law of pe oner No.1 men oned that due to lack of understanding pe oner No.-1 Gunita @ Gunita Rani was staying with her parents. Number of Panchayats were convened to call her back but she refused to return back. When pe oner No.1-Gunita @ Gunita Rani had le> their home, she had also taken not only her gold but also the gold which they had been given to her. She also put en re blame on complainant. In one Panchayat, it was decided to return ring and Kada. All of the accused wanted to forcibly take away his ar cles by puBng him under duress, which he could not give and because of this pressure, he commi?ed suicide and the girl's family members are responsible for the same.
7. An analysis of the arguments and the suicide note would lead to the outcome that even as per the suicide note, pe oner No.1- Gunita @ Gunita Rani was residing with her parents. Regarding the allega ons of pressure to return the gold, the suicide note is silent about the nature of pressure or what they intended to do. There is not even an allega on of any physical violence being meted out by pe oners against the deceased. Regarding filing of a complaint, it was legal right of pe oner No.1- Gunita @ Gunita Rani to do so and it was also obligatory for the police officials to proceed on the allega ons made in the suicide note. In case, the allega ons made by Gunita @ Gunita Rani in such complaint are found to be incorrect, then needless to say that the inves gator can proceed against her under Sec on 182 IPC or corresponding Sec ons 216 or 217 of Bhara ya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, whatever is applicable. It is neither a case of custodial interroga on nor pre-trial incarcera on.
33 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849 CRM-M-25545-2024
8. Given the nature of the allega ons coupled with the fact that the pe oners are first offenders, one of the relevant factors would be to provide an opportunity to course correct. Even a primafacie perusal of paragraph 7 of the bail pe on needs considera on for bail.
9. In Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v State of Punjab, 1980 (2) SCC 565, (Para 30), a Cons tu onal Bench of Supreme Court held that the bail decision must enter the cumula ve effect of the variety of circumstances jus fying the grant or refusal of bail. In Kalyan Chandra Sarkar v Rajesh Ranjan @ Pappu Yadav, 2005 (2) SCC 42, (Para 18) a three-member Bench of Supreme Court held that the persons accused of non-bailable offences are en tled to bail if the Court concerned concludes that the prosecu on has failed to establish a prima facie case against him, or despite the existence of a prima facie case, the Court records reasons for its sa sfac on for the need to release such person on bail, in the given fact situa ons. The rejec on of bail does not preclude filing a subsequent applica on. The courts can release on bail, provided the circumstances then prevailing require, and a change in the fact situa on. In State of Rajasthan v Balchand, AIR 1977 SC 2447, (Para 2 & 3), Supreme Court no ceably illustrated that the basic rule might perhaps be tersely put as bail, not jail, except where there are circumstances sugges ve of fleeing from jus ce or thwar ng the course of jus ce or crea ng other troubles in the shape of repea ng offences or in mida ng witnesses and the like by the pe oners who seek enlargement on bail from the Court. It is true that the gravity of the offence involved is likely to induce the pe oners to avoid the course of jus ce and must weigh when considering the ques on of jail. So also, the heinousness of the crime. In Gudikan Narasimhulu v Public Prosecutor, (1978) 1 SCC 240, (Para 16), Supreme Court held that the delicate light of the law favors release unless countered by the nega ve criteria necessita ng that course. In Prahlad Singh Bha v NCT, Delhi, (2001) 4 SCC 280, Supreme Court highlighted one of the factors for bail to be the public or the State's immense interest and similar other considera ons. In Dataram Singh v State of U?ar Pradesh, 2018:INSC:107 [Para 7], (2018) 3 SCC 22, (Para 6), Supreme Court held that the grant or refusal of bail is en rely within the discre on of the judge hearing the ma?er and though that discre on is unfe?ered, it must be exercised judiciously, compassionately, and in a humane manner. Also, condi ons for the grant of bail ought not to be so strict as to be incapable of compliance, thereby making the grant of bail illusory.
10. The possibility of the accused influencing the inves ga on, tampering with evidence, in mida ng witnesses, and the likelihood of fleeing jus ce, can be taken care of by imposing elabora ve and stringent condi ons. In Sushila Aggarwal v. State (NCT of 4 4 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849 CRM-M-25545-2024 Delhi), 2020:INSC:106 [PARA 92], (2020) 5 SCC 1, Para 92, the Cons tu onal Bench held that unusually, subject to the evidence produced, the Courts can impose restric ve condi ons. In Sumit Mehta v. State of N.C.T. of Delhi, (2013)15 SCC 570, Para 11, Supreme Court holds that while exercising power Under Sec on 438 of the Code, the Court is duty-bound to strike a balance between the individual's right to personal freedom and the right of inves ga on of the police. While exercising utmost restraint, the Court can impose condi ons countenancing its object as permissible under the law to ensure an uninterrupted and unhampered inves ga on.
11. Without commen ng on the case's merits, in the facts and circumstances peculiar to this case, and for the reasons men oned above, the pe oners make a case for bail, subject to the following terms and condi ons, which shall be over and above and irrespec ve of the contents of the form of bail bonds in chapter XXXIII of CrPC, 1973.
12. In Madhu Tanwar and Anr. v. State of Punjab, 2023:PHHC:077618 [Para 10, 21], CRM-M-27097-2023, decided on 29-05-2023, this court observed, [10] The exponen al growth in technology and ar ficial intelligence has transformed iden fica on techniques remarkably. Voice, gait, and facial recogni on are incredibly sophis cated and pervasive. Impersona on, as we know it tradi onally, has virtually become impossible. Thus, the remedy lies that whenever a judge or an officer believes that the accused might be a flight risk or has a history of fleeing from jus ce, then in such cases, appropriate condi ons can be inserted that all the expenditure that shall be incurred to trace them, shall be recovered from such person, and the State shall have a lien over their assets to make good the loss.
[21] In this era when the knowledge revolu on has just begun, to keep pace with exponen al and unimaginable changes the technology has brought to human lives, it is only fiBng that the dependence of the accused on surety is minimized by giving alterna ve op ons. Furthermore, there should be no insistence to provide permanent addresses when people either do not have permanent abodes or intend to re-locate.
13. Given above, provided the pe oners are not required in any other case, the pe oners shall be released on bail in the FIR cap oned above in the following terms:
(a). Pe oners to furnish a personal bond of Rs. Ten thousand (INR 10,000/); AND
(b) To give one surety of Rs. Twenty-five thousand (INR 25,000/-), to the sa sfac on of the concerned Inves gator/SHO, before whom the bonds are required to be furnished. When the bonds are to be furnished before 5 5 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849 CRM-M-25545-2024 a Judicial Magistrate, then if the concerned Judicial Magistrate is unavailable, go to any other nearest Ilaqa Magistrate/duty Magistrate.
Before accep ng the surety, the concerned officer must be sa sfied that if the accused fails to appear in court, then such surety can produce the accused before the court.
OR
(b). Pe oners to hand over to the concerned inves gator a fixed deposit for Rs. Ten thousand only (INR 10,000/-), with the clause of automa c renewal of the principal and the interest rever ng to the linked account, made in favor of the 'Chief Judicial Magistrate' of the concerned district, or blocking the aforesaid amount in favour of the concerned 'Chief Judicial Magistrate'. Said fixed deposit or blocking funds can be from any of the banks where the stake of the State is more than 50% or from any of the well-established and stable private sector banks. In case the bankers are not willing to make a Fixed Deposit in such eventuality it shall be permissible for the pe oners to prepare an account payee demand dra> favouring concerned Chief Judicial Magistrate for a similar amount.
(c). Such court shall have a lien over the funds un l the case's closure or discharged by subs tu on, or up to the expiry of the period men oned under S. 437-A CrPC, 1973, and at that stage, subject to the proceedings under S. 446 CrPC, the en re amount of fixed deposit, less taxes if any, shall be endorsed/returned to the depositor.
(d). The pe oners are to also execute a bond for a?endance in the concerned court(s) as and when asked to do so. The presenta on of the personal bond shall be deemed acceptance of the declara ons made in the bail pe on and all other s pula ons, terms, and condi ons of sec on 438(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and of this bail order.
(e). While furnishing personal bond, the pe oners shall men on the following personal iden fica on details:
1. AADHAR number
2. Passport number, (If available), when the a?es ng officer/court thinks appropriate or considers the accused as a flight risk.
3. Mobile number (If available) 6 6 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849 CRM-M-25545-2024
4. E-Mail id (If available)
14. The pe oners are directed to join the inves ga on within seven days and also as and when called by the Inves gator. The pe oners shall be in deemed custody for Sec on 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. The pe oners shall join the inves ga on as and when called by the Inves ga ng Officer or any Superior Officer; and shall cooperate with the inves ga on at all further stages as required. In the event of failure to do so, it will be open for the prosecu on to seek cancella on of the bail. Whenever the inves ga on occurs within the police premises, the pe oners shall not be called before 8 AM, let off before 6 PM, and shall not be subjected to third-degree, indecent language, inhuman treatment, etc.
15. The pe oners shall not influence, browbeat, pressurize, make any inducement, threat, or promise, directly or indirectly, to the witnesses, the Police officials, or any other person acquainted with the facts and the circumstances of the case, to dissuade them from disclosing such facts to the Police, or the Court, or to tamper with the evidence.
16. Given the background of allega ons against the pe oners, it becomes paramount to protect the vic m, their family members, as well as the members of society, and incapacita ng the accused would be one of the primary op ons un l the filing of the closure report or discharge, or acqui?al. Consequently, it would be appropriate to restrict the possession of firearm(s). [This restric on is being imposed based on the preponderance of evidence of probability and not of evidence of certainty, i.e., beyond reasonable doubt; and as such, it is not to be construed as an intermediate sanc on]. Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe oners shall surrender all weapons, firearms, ammuni on, if any, along with the arms license to the concerned authority within fi>een days from today and inform the Inves gator about the compliance. However, subject to the Indian Arms Act, 1959, the pe oners shall be en tled to renew and take it back in case of acqui?al in this case, provided otherwise permissible in the concerned rules. Restric ng firearms would ins ll confidence in the vic m(s), their families, and society; it would also restrain the accused from influencing the witnesses and repea ng the offence.
17. Till the comple on of the trial, the pe oner shall not contact, call, text, message, remark, stare, stalk, make any gestures or express any unusual or inappropriate, verbal or otherwise objec onable behavior towards the vic m and vic m's family, either physically, or through phone call or any other social media, through any other mode, nor 7 7 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849 CRM-M-25545-2024 shall unnecessarily roam around the vic m's home.
18. Given the nature of the allega ons and the other circumstances peculiar to this case, the pe oners shall not enter the property, workplace, and the residence of the vic m within radius of one k.m. ll the recording of the statements of all non-official and informal witnesses in the trial. This Court is imposing this condi on to rule out any a?empt by the accused to incapacitate, influence, or cause any discomfort to the vic m. Reference be made to Vikram Singh v Central Bureau of Inves ga on, 2018 All SCR (Crl.)
458); and Aparna Bhat v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2021:INSC:192, 2021 SCC Online SC 230.
19. The bail bonds shall remain in force throughout the trial and a>er that in Sec on 437-A of the Cr.P.C., if not canceled due to non-appearance or breach of condi ons.
20. If the pe oners find the bond amount beyond social and financial reach, it may be brought to the no ce of this Court for appropriate reduc on. Further, if the pe oners find bail condi on(s) as viola ng fundamental, human, or other rights, or causing difficulty due to any situa on, then for modifica on of such term(s), the pe oners may file a reasoned applica on before this Court, and a>er taking cognizance, even to the Court taking cognizance or the trial Court, as the case may be, and such Court shall also be competent to modify or delete any condi on.
21. This order does not, in any manner, limit or restrict the rights of the Police or the inves ga ng agency from further inves ga on as per law.
22. In case the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge of the concerned Police Sta on arraigns another sec on of any penal offence in this FIR, and if the new sec on prescribes maximum sentence which is not greater than the sec ons men oned above, then this bail order shall be deemed to have also been passed for the newly added sec on(s). However, suppose the newly inserted sec ons prescribe a sentence exceeding the maximum sentence prescribed in the sec ons men oned above, then, in that case, the Inves gator/Officer-In-Charge shall give the pe oners' no ce of a minimum of seven days providing an opportunity to avail the remedies available in law.
23. Any observa on made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the merits of the case nor shall the trial Court advert to these comments.
24. In return for the protec on from incarcera on, the Court believes that the accused shall also reciprocate through desirable behavior.
88 of 9 ::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:41 ::: Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:092849 CRM-M-25545-2024
25. There would be no need for a cer fied copy of this order for furnishing bonds, and any Advocate for the Pe oners can download this order along with case status from the official web page of this Court and a;est it to be a true copy. In case the a;es ng officer wants to verify the authen city, such an officer can also verify its authen city and may download and use the downloaded copy for a;es ng bonds.
Pe11on allowed in aforesaid terms. All pending applica ons, if any, stand disposed.
(ANOOP CHITKARA)
JUDGE
23.07.2024
Jyo -II
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether reportable: No.
9
9 of 9
::: Downloaded on - 26-07-2024 06:30:41 :::