Krishna Devi vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 39 dated 29.5.1998 under Sections 302, 201, 34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code has been registered at Police Station City Malout. Petitioner''s application for bail was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

The F.I.R. was registered on the statement of Baljinder Singh, wherein he has stated, among other things, as follows :

His fatherinlaw is Nirmal Singh. Nirmal Singh''s son was Gurdeep Singh (deceased in this case). Gurdeep Singh''s wife is petitionerKrishna Devi. Karnail Singh is a tenant in the upper portion of the house of Nirmal Singh. PetitionerKrishna was having illicit relations with the said Karnail Singh. The attempt of the complainant to dissuade them from having such illicit relationship did not bear fruit. The complainant had brought this fact to the notice of his fatherinlaw Nirmal Singh.

On 18.5.1998 at about 8.30 p.m. Gurdeep Singh came to the shop of the complainant. Karnail Singh, his son, Gurvinder Singh and Pardeep Kaur wife of Karnail Singh came in a car and took Gurdeep Singh with them in the car.

On the next morning Nirmal Singh came and told the complainant that Gurdeep Singh had not returned home, to whom the complainant told about Karnail Singh and others taking Gurdeep Singh in a car. On enquiry Karnail Singh told that they had dropped him in front of Urang Cinema in Malout Mandi. The complainant suspected that Karnail Singh and others had abducted Gurdeep Singh in order to kill him.

The dead body of Gurdeep Singh was found from Rajasthan Feeder Canal on 29.5.1998.

I have heard the counsel for both sides and perused the records on file.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that on 29.5.1998 Nirmal Singh, the father of Gurdeep Singh had lodged a complaint at Police Station City Malout (which has been registered as D.D.R No. 12), stating that on 18.5.1998 at about 8.30 p.m. Gurdeep Singh, who is mentally retarded, weak and could not speak fluently, had left the house without informing any body and had not returned home. The learned Counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that if really on 18.5.1998 at about 8.30 p.m. Karnail Singh and others had taken Gurdeep Singh with them and if, the complainant Baljinder Singh had seen them and if really he had told about this on the next day i.e. 19.5.1998 to his fatherinlaw Nirmal Singh, Nirmal Singh would not have failed to mention in his complaint (D.D.R. No. 12 registered on 20.5.1998), about this alleged taking of Gurdeep Singh by Karnail Singh and others. He further contends that as per the present version of Baljinder Singh he had even informed his fatherinlaw about the illicit relationship between Karnail Singh and Krishna Devi, the wife of Gurdeep Singh, and if that be so, Nirmal Singh would have mentioned about the alleged illicit relationship between Krishna Devi and Karnail Singh and would certainly have raised at least a doubt against Karnail Singh and others.

There is nothing in the complaint by Nirmal Singh except that Gurdeep Singh, who is mentally retarded had left the house without informing anybody.

Taking into consideration these arguments put forward by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, but at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

Petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot.