Ranbir Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

This is a petition for bail by the accused who is arrested in connection with FIR No. 75, dated 12.10.1995, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

I have heard learned Advocate for the petitioner and learned Advocate for the State of Haryana.

The accused is likely to be charged for the offence of murdering Babli Devi with whom he was in love and her marriage was to take place on 14.10.1995 with somebody else and the petitioner in order to take revenge killed her.

The learned Advocate for the petitioner argued that it was not the petitioner who killed Babli Devi, but when her inlaws came to know about the love affair of Babli Devi with the petitioner, they cancelled the marriage and the parents of Babli Devi killed her and put the blame on the accused. He further argued that except the mother of Babli Devi, there is no evidence and the eyewitnesses Devi Chand and Jagpal mentioned in the FIR do not support the prosecution.

According to the mother of Babli Devi, whose FIR has been recorded by the police (translated version is quoted in the petition itself), she was arranging dowry articles in one of the rooms of her house, at that time, the petitioner was spotted by her entering the courtyard of her house. On this, she came out of the room and saw the petitioner present in the room of Babli Devi and he asked her as to why she had cheated him and that is case she would not marry him he would neither allow her to wear the ornaments for the marriage nor would he allow the marriage to be performed and by saying, so, he caused many blows on the body of Babli Devi with a knife. The complainant raised an alarm and tried to get hold of the petitioner but he pushed her aside. The other accused Mohinder Singh was standing on the main gate of the house. On hearing the alarm, Devi Chand and Jagpal reached at the spot and on noticing them Ranbir, i.e. the petitioner and Mohinder Singh fled away on a motorcycle.

It is not disputed that Babli Devi died because of the injuries received by her. It is also an admitted fact that Devi Chand and Jagpal were at the spot but they had only seen the petitioner running away.

The counsel for the petitioner argued that this being the only evidence against the petitioner, it should not come in the way of granting bail.

I do not agree with this statement. There is prima facie evidence of the complainant, who had lodged the FIR Devi Chand and Jagpal (had not seen the incident but) had seen the petitioner running away. It is stated by the complainant in the FIR itself that on hearing the alarm, Devi Chand and Jagpal reached at the spot and on noticing them the petitioner ran away. This being so, it is not possible for me that charge under Section 302 of the IPC is not made against the petitioner. Therefore, this petition is dismissed.