Punjab-Haryana High Court
Prem Singh vs State Of Haryana on 4 December, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154479
Neutral Citation No.2023:PHHC:154479
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
CRM-M-45524 of 2023
Reserved on : 29.11.2023
Pronounced on: 04.12.2023
Prem Singh .....Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana .....Respondent
CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present: - Mr. Vineet Sharma for Mr. Deepak Aggarwal,
Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (Oral)
By way of this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner has prayed for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.777 dated
02.12.2017 registered under Sections 302/328/34 IPC at Police Station
Samalkha, District Panipat.
2. Petitioner is the husband of deceased Pinki. FIR was lodged by
Rajpal, father of Pinki, as per which marriage of deceased Pinki was
performed with Prem Singh (petitioner) in 2002. Four daughters were born
out of this wedlock. It was alleged that on 02.12.2017, petitioner along with
his mother Anto Devi, brother Karan Singh and sister-in-law Santosh gave
beatings to Pinki and at about 08.00 PM, administered poison to her. On
getting this information, complainant reached IBMH Hospital, Panipat,
where these facts were disclosed by Pinki to him and then she became
unconscious. During treatment, Pinki expired. Necessary investigation was
conducted. Karan Singh, Santosh and Anto Devi were arrested from time to
time and final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C was filed qua them. Despite
issuance of warrants of arrest against the petitioner, he could not be arrested
at that time. Later on, petitioner was arrested on the basis of secret
information on 05.07.2023 and sent to judicial custody.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154479
CRM-M-45524 of 2023 2023:PHHC:154479
3. It is contended by learned counsel that the petitioner was
serving in the Indian Army. Prior to his arrest, he was posted in the area of
Jammu and Kashmir and was on duty. Learned counsel further points out
that no proclamation was ever effected against the petitioner nor any
intimation was sent to the Army authorities. Further contention of learned
counsel is that co-accused Karan Singh, Santosh and Anto Devi have already
been acquitted vide judgment dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure P.2) passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, after finding that it was not a
case of administering poison to the deceased, as was alleged by the
prosecution. Learned counsel further points out that petitioner is in custody
for the last more than four months and that the trial may take time to
conclude and so, he be allowed bail.
4. Learned State Counsel opposed the bail petition by submitting
that petitioner is the main accused being the husband of the deceased and
that earlier his presence could not be procured despite issuance of warrants
of arrest. However, it is not disputed by learned State Counsel that no
proclamation was ever issued against the petitioner. He is also unable to
disclose as to whether the Army authorities were ever informed about the
involvement of the petitioner in the present case.
5. Having considered submissions of both the sides, this Court is
inclined to grant bail to the petitioner for the following reasons.
6. Although petitioner has not faced trial so far and so any
observations made by the Court in the trial pertaining to the co-accused, may
not be binding qua the present petitioner but still certain observations. which
pertain to the cause of death, are very necessary to notice.
7. While coming to the conclusion that prosecution had failed to
prove that unnatural death of Pinki was caused by the accused and that
Page No.2 out of 4 pages
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154479
CRM-M-45524 of 2023 2023:PHHC:154479
prosecution had failed to establish the guilt, learned Additional Sessions
Judge in its judgment dated 18.02.2020 (Annexure P.2) gave the reasons in
para-Nos.18 to 20 as under: -
"18. The first and foremost reason is that the medical record do not
support the version of the prosecution that the deceased was administered
or given the poison by all the accused. A perusal of the MLR Ex. P18 of
N.C. Medical College & Hospital, Israna goes to show that there is a
report `intake' of sulfas tablet. Similarly, Ex.P5 of IBM Hospital & Trauma
Centre, Sanoli Road, Panipat depicts `ingestion' of unknown powder from
poison. Both these words clearly suggested that it was the voluntary act by
the deceased (may be intentionally). However, it completely ruled out of
the possibility of the involvement of any third person as it would have been
in the case of administration of poison. Dr. Narayan Dabas who appeared
as PW10 has even specifically stated that the cause of death was due to
consumption of aluminium phosphide. Even he has not stated that the
poison was administered to her. So, the medical record has nowhere
suggested that the poison was administered to her against her will, rather it
is more indicative towards the fact that it was voluntarily taken by the
deceased.
19. Secondly, the aforesaid reason is further substantiated from the fact
that the deceased nowhere disclosed about the said incident to any of the
doctors where she was hospitalized. In this regard, reference can be made
to Ex.P18 the MLR of NC Medical College & Hospital, Israna which goes
to show that the patient was conscious and responding, meaning thereby
she was fully alert. Similarly, Ex.P5 of IBM Hospital & Trauma Centre,
Panipat goes to show that she was conscious but none of the doctors have
reported that the deceased/ victim had told them that she was given poison
by the accused. If she would have been given the poison by the accused,
there was no reason for the deceased not to disclose that fatal information
to the doctors. So, the silence on the part of the deceased in both the
hospitals somehow lends support to the defence story that she had herself
consumed the poison and not given by the accused.
20. Thirdly, the medical report specifically shows that it is nowhere
recorded that the victim had sustained any external injury whereas if so she
would have been overpowered by all the three accused, then there would
have been at least scratches or bruises but as no such injury was noticed by
the doctors during her examination, it also raises a doubt over the
Page No.3 out of 4 pages
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154479
CRM-M-45524 of 2023 2023:PHHC:154479
prosecution story that she was forcibly given poison by the accused
persons."
8. It is, thus, evident that neither any external injury on the person
of deceased Pinki was found nor she was found to have been overpowered
by any accused nor she had disclosed to the doctors during treatment about
the manner in which poison was allegedly given to her.
9. Having regard to all the afore-said facts and circumstances of
the case, but without commenting anything on the merits of the case, present
petition is allowed. Petitioner is admitted to bail on his furnishing bail
bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/ Duty
Magistrate concerned.
December 04, 2023 (DEEPAK GUPTA)
renu JUDGE
Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Page No.4 out of 4 pages Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154479
4 of 4
