Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinder vs State Of Punjab on 26 August, 2021
CRM-M-37950-2020 1
220
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-37950-2020
Date of Decision : 26.08.2021
Jaswinder Singh @ Chhinder
.....Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA
Present : Mr. Rahul Arora, Advocate
for the Petitioner.
Mr. B.S. Sewak, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab
for the Respondent/State.
Mr. S.S. Sahu, Advocate
for the Complainant.
SUDIP AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)
The instant Petition has been filed under Section 439 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure seeking Regular Bail on behalf of the Petitioner
in case FIR No.120, dated 5th November, 2019, registered under Sections
302, 34, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Mamdot, District
Ferozepur.
2. The Petitioner has remained in detention for more than 11
months by now, since 21st September, 2020.
3. It may be mentioned that originally the deceased namely
Sarabjit Singh was presumed to have died by accidental electrocution
after which his body was cremated by his family members without any Post
1 of 4
Mortem.
4. Subsequently, the FIR was lodged by his mother Harjinder
Kaur, who claimed that she had later on come to know about the Petitioner's
illicit relationship with the widow of her deceased-son, and that she also
had access to some telephonic conversation which took place between the
said widow Parampreet Kaur and her sister Manpreet Kaur in which she
admitted that the deceased had not died due to electrocution but had been
killed by two unknown intruders accompanied by a lady, who had come to
their house in the night, locked her in a room and then killed her husband as
they had some land related dispute. The said Parampreet Kaur, who is also a
co-accused in the case, had also admitted in the telephonic conversation that
she had not disclosed about these facts initially because the
intruders/assailants of her husband had threatened to kill her and her family
as well, if she did so.
5. It is further mentioned that the said Parampreet Kaur has been
granted Anticipatory Bail by this Court in CRM-M-31295 of 2020 only
three days ago on 23rd August, 2021 after it was submitted on behalf of the
State that her custodial interrogation was not required.
6. On 27th April, 2021, this Court had asked the State to verify and
intimate the date and time of the concerned recorded telephonic
conversation between Parampreet Kaur and her sister Manpreet Kaur, in
which the Complainant-Harjinder Kaur had intervened at times. Ld.
State Counsel has been unable to inform the requisite date and time of
the call but submits that after completion of investigation Challan against
2 of 4
the present Petitioner has already been submitted, and the matter is now
fixed in the Ld. Trial Court on 7th September 2021 for consideration on
Charges against him.
7. It may be mentioned that even in the phone call recording, in
question, no statement has emerged which could indicate anything in regard
to the nature of involvement of the Petitioner in the murder of the deceased
Sarabjit Singh, nor the co-accused at any point by slip of tongue admitted
anything about the Petitioner's involvement despite being apparently
unaware that the telephonic conversation was being recorded.
8. Ld. Counsel for the Complainant has nevertheless drawn
attention of the Court to the fact that during inquiry, seven Telephone calls
had been noticed which had taken place between the phone belonging to the
Petitioner and that of the deceased-Sarabjit Singh, from the night of 17th
December and till 4.12 AM in the following morning, by which the
deceased was apparently dead.
9. In the opinion of the Court, this cannot be regarded as sufficient
material to hold that the conversations did actually take place only between
the deceased's wife and the Petitioner, since the actual time of the deceased's
death is unknown, as no Post Mortem on his body was conducted, and the
phone admittedly belonged to the deceased, himself.
10. The Petitioner himself from his side during inquiry had also
admitted that he had received a phone call at around 4.15 AM in the
morning, which certainly is consistent with the factum of the last recorded
telephonic conversation at 4.12 AM. His version before the Police was that
3 of 4
he had received the call from Parampreet Kaur herself to the effect that her
husband was in a very serious condition, on account of which, the Petitioner
had rushed to her house along with his father, and also took a local Doctor
with them who was of the opinion that Sarabjit Singh had died on account
of electrocution.
11. In the overall facts and circumstances, therefore, this Court is
of the opinion that further detention of the Petitioner for an indefinite period
at this stage is not called for, particularly considering that investigation
against him has already been completed long ago and the prime accused in
the FIR namely Parampreet Kaur has already been granted anticipatory bail
earlier.
12. As such, without commenting upon the other merits of the case
and keeping in view the period of custody already undergone by the
Petitioner, he is ordered to be released on bail subject to the satisfaction of
the Ld. Trial Court/Duty Magistrate concerned.
13. It is, however, clarified that the Ld. Trial Court shall not be
influenced by any of the observations recorded in this order and shall
proceed on to conduct trial and pronounce its final judgment independently,
on its own merits.
14. Disposed off.
August 26, 2021 (SUDIP AHLUWALIA)
Dpr JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
