Jasbir Kaur vs State of Punjab

R.L. Anand, J.

By this order I dispose of four bail applications No. 15243M of 1998 (Dr. Jasbir Kaur v. State of Punjab), No. 15313M of 1998, (Dr. Rajiv Gupta and another v. State of Punjab) No. 16599M of 1998, (Balwinder Kaur v. State of Punjab) and No. 17759M of 1998, (Devki & anr. v. State of Punjab) as in the opinion of this court all these four bail applications can be disposed of by one order.

Dr. Jasbir Kaur, owner of Jasbir Hospital and Maternity Home (Private) Limited and Scan Centre, Phagwara, Dr. Rajiv Gupta and Dr. Subhash Chander Sharma (both are in Government service), Devki Devi and her husband Mohinder Ram (sweeperess and Chowkidar respectively) and Balwinder Kaur (nurse) have filed these bail applications and all the applications have arisen from FIR 45 dated 23/5/1998 registered in Police Station City Phagwara under sections 302/148/149/120B read with Section 201 IPC.

Parveen daughter of Surinder Pal was a midwife/nurse and she was working in this capacity in the private clinic of Dr. Jasbir Kaur. On the relevant days she was supposed to perform night duty. As per prosecution, the death of Parveen took place on the night intervening 20/21.3.1997 in the clinic owned by Dr. Jasbir Kaur, one of the petitioners. In this case the FIR was registered on application No. 640SH dated 18.7.1997 given by Shri Surinder Pal, father of the deceased and this application was addressed to the Director General of Police. The complainant has stated that he was a resident of village Mandhali, tehsil and district Nawanshahar and his daughter Parveen was working as nurse in Jasbir Hospital and Maternity Home (Private) Limited and Scan Centre, Phagwara run by and under the control of Dr. Jasbir Kaur and her husband in Gobind Nagar, Phagwara. Balwinder Kaur is also working as nurse and Devki and her husband Mohinder are also working as sweepercumchowkidar in the said hospital. His daughter Parveen was working as nurse for the last about four years. On 20.3.1997 at about (sic) P.M. his daughter came to Phagwara for duty and she was hale and hearty in her natural mood when came from the village. At about 2.00/2.30 PM in the night intervening 20/21.3.1997 he heard a knock at his door and on opening the door, he and his son Paramjit alias Pamma and Jagdish Lal found several persons including Dr. Jasbir Kaur, her husband Dr. Rajiv Gupta, Surgeon of Civil Hospital, Phagwara, Dr. Subhash Chander Sharma of ESI Phagwara, Balwinder Kaur, Devki and Mohinder with two more persons and all these persons came in a van. It is further stated by the complainant that Dr. Jasbir Kaur told him that his daughter Parveen had expired in her hospital and asked me to accompany her. Resultantly, the complainant and his family members were stunned and shocked on hearing about the death of Parveen. On reaching the hospital of Dr. Jasbir Kaur the complainant found his daughter lying dead on floor of upper storey in shabby condition. The complainant enquired from the said doctors about the reason of death but they were not ready to say anything about the cause of death of Parveen and concealed the same. Dr. Jasbir Kaur, her husband Dr. Rajiv Gupta, Dr. Subhash Chander Sharma, Balwinder Kaur, Devki and Mohinder asked the complainant to take the dead body of Parveen to home in order to avoid the harassment of the police. In the meantime Jagdish Lal along with Sadhu Ram and others came in the hospital on hearing the death of Parveen and they also saw Parveen lying on the floor of upper storey of the hospital in shabby condition. Complainant further stated that he and others wanted that the matter should be reported to the police to get the dead body post mortem but all the persons told the complainant and his family members that post mortem was to be done by Dr. Rajiv Gupta and they would get the complainant and his family members involved in the death of Parveen. The complainant further alleged that he and his companions were disturbed and frightened and for these reasons they evaded the post mortem. Dr. Jasbir Kaur and her husband forced them to write a note as dictated by them and got their signatures/thumb impressions to the effect that no foul play was being detected by them. It is further alleged by the complainant that husband of Dr. Jasbir Kaur and Dr. Rajiv Gupta then arranged a taxi for taking the dead body of Parveen to Mandali village. Balwinder Kaur, Devki, Mohinder and Dr. Rajiv Gupta followed the said taxi in a different vehicle. None of the aforesaid persons ever attended the funeral ceremony of Parveen nor they paid condolence. The complainant further stated that his daughter Parveen was not willing to do night duty with Balwinder Kaur as she used to talk about the misbehaviour by her. It was further submitted by the complainant that Dr. Rajiv Gupta and Dr. Subhash Sharma had often visited the hospital of Dr. Jasbir Kaur for attending surgery and other operations and they tried to be frank with Parveen as told to him by the deceased. Complaints were also made in this regard to Dr. Jasbir Kaur, who did not bother. Finally, the complainant has alleged that he was sure that Parveen was raped and then poisoned by the aforesaid two doctors besides Dr. Jasbir Kaur as well as her employees namely Balwinder Kaur, Devki and Mohinder.

Earlier the police did not take any action, as a result of which the complainant filed Criminal Misc. No. 11016M of 1998 in the High Court and the case was registered vide F.I.R. No. 45 on 23.5.1998.

While disallowing the anticipatory bail, this Court has to ensure that the discretion regarding which the petitioners are craving must be exercised in a judicial manner. The gravity of the allegations is one of the considerations in allowing or disallowing the bail applications, especially in a case under Sections 302 IPC.

The learned DAG appearing on behalf of the State and assisted by Shri Lakhanpal submitted that in view of the serious allegations levelled by the complainant that the present petitioners are prima facie responsible for the alleged rape and murder of Parveen, they should not be enlarged on bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. as their custodial interrogation is necessary in public interest. The State has opposed the bail applications further on the plea that there is a prima facie evidence coming from the statement of the father of the deceased as well as the statement of one Husan Lal, before whom the alleged extrajudicial confession was made by the petitioners on 1.6.1998 by stating that Parveen was duped and she was taken to the upper storey of the hospital where she was allegedly raped by Dr. Sudesh Chander, Dr. Rajiv Gupta and Dr. Subhash Sharma.

On the contrary, Mrs. Renu Sharma submitted that the allegations against the petitioners are inherently improbable. Moreover the circumstance of alleged extrajudicial confession is nothing but a fabricated piece of evidence as the petitioners have no occasion to repose confidence in Husan Lal.

After considering the rival contentions of the parties, I am of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the anticipatory bail should be granted to all the petitioners. It is the admitted case of the parties that the clinic is being run by Dr. Jasbir Kaur and she is a lady. It is highly improbable that she would invite Dr. Rajiv Gupta and Dr. Subhash Sharma to share the person of the lady. It is not the case of the prosecution that Dr. Jasbir Kaur was a lady of loose character or that she had been submitting herself for sexual purposes before Dr. Rajiv Gupta and Dr. Subhash Sharma. Prima facie there is not an iota of evidence coming from the deceased or her father that she had ever complained in writing against Dr. Jasbir Kaur, Dr. Rajiv Gupta and Dr. Subhash Sharma. The death in this case admittedly took place on the night intervening 20/21.3.1997 and F.I.R. was lodged in the month of May, 1988. The alleged complaint made by the father of the deceased is after about three months of the alleged occurrence. Prima facie there is no evidence collected by the Investigating Officer so far about the cause of death of the deceased. During the course of submissions a specific question was put to the learned DAG whether any of the petitioners is related with Husan Lal before whom extrajudicial confession was made. It has been fairly conceded by the learned DAG, who got the instructions from the Investigating Officer present in Court, that there was no cause or occasion for any of the petitioners to approach Husan Lal in order to suffer an extra judicial confession. Be that as it may, would it be worthwhile for this Court to reject the anticipatory bail of the petitioners solely on the ground of extrajudicial confession and the considered answer of this Court would be in the negative.

Considering all the pros and cons of this case, especially when there is no medical evidence on the record, I allow the anticipatory bail application of all the petitioners and direct the Investigation Officer that in the event of the arrest of any of the petitioners, he shall be enlarged on bail. The petitioners shall join the investigation as and when called upon by the Investigation Officer. They will not leave the country without the prior permission of the CJM concerned. They will not tamper with the prosecution evidence directly or indirectly and they will also surrender their passports, if any, with the Investigating Officer.

My observations in this case are only limited for bail purposes and shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial.

Application allowed.