Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurdeep Singh vs State Of Punjab on 18 March, 2024
Author: Pankaj Jain
Bench: Pankaj Jain
CRM-M No. 64981 of 2023 (O&M) ss: 2024:PHHC:038541
208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M No. 64981 of 2023 (O&M)
Date of decision : 18.03.2024
Gurdeep Singh ee Petitioner
versus
StateofPunjabo ee Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN
REK
Present :- Mr. Ashish Soi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Tarun Aggarwal, Sr. DAG, Punjab
3K OK 3k
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL)
1 On 05.01.2024 the following order was passed:-
"Apprehending his arrest in FIR No.150 dated 19.12.2021,
registered under Sections 302/34 IPC at Police Station Sadar Ahmedgarh,
District Malerkotla, petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail.
FIR was registered on the information received from
Gurwinder Kaur W/o Jagtar Singh who alleged as under :-
"Stated that I am the resident of the above address and I do
household work. I was earlier married to Satnam Singh of
Ramgarh Bhullar Jagraon in 1991 and he died in the year 2005.
Then I married Jagtar Singh s/o Bant Singh r/o Jandali Kalan in
the year 2007. I had two sons who were living in the house of
Jagtar Singh, my elder son Lakhveer Singh is working as a
electrician in the nearby Khalsa School. Yesterday night at 09 after
his workshift, he came home, had his dinner and went to sleep in
the room upstairs (chaubara). When in the morning he did not
come down, then at the insistence of my husband I went upstairs
and I saw that he had hanged himself with a bedsheet tied around
his neck. The body was removed from the fan by me, my husband
Jagtar and brother in law Ram Singh. I have a doubt in regards to
the death of my son because there is a dispute with my brother in
law Ikattar Singh that is why the post mortem of the body must be
done, the reason for the death be ascertained and the investigation
be done. I have given my statement and have read it is correct."
CRM-M No. 64981 of 2023 (O&M) 2: 2024:PHHC:038541
Petitioner is son of aforesaid Ikattar Singh named in the FIR.
So far as the role of the petitioner is concerned that is based upon the
statement made by Ikattar Singh while in police custody which has been
mentioned in the police report as under :-
"On 04/05th/10/2021 at night at around 02 o clock I had woken up
to go to the bathroom, then I went to the balcony to relieve myself
and then I saw that at the chaubara that Lakhveer Singh was
sleeping alone in his room and his door was open, then I came
down from the chaubara and woke up my elder son Gurdeep Singh
alias Deepa from his sleep and told him everything and then
Gurdeep Singh also said that Lakhveer Singh had kept an evil eye
over my sister Dalveer Kaur from a long time, then we made a plan
that I will smother Lakhveer Singh's neck while sitting on his chest
and Gurdeep Singh Deepa shall hold his legs, then after due
consultation we went to the chaubara and saw that Lakhveer Singh
was sleeping with his blanket on, then I sat on his chest and
smothered/strangulated his neck and Gurdeep Singh held onto his
legs. My son Gurdeep Singh alias Deera was so angry on him that
he bit his leg. Then after sometime, Lakhveer Singh died and then I
kept Lakhveer Singh on my shoulder and then Gurdeep Singh tied
the double bed sheet around his neck, threw it over the fan and
hanged him so that it looks like suicide."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the post-
mortem report it is amply clear that cause of death of the deceased is on
account of hanging. Reliance is being placed upon the opinion formulated
by the post-mortem Board and the ligature mark as mentioned in the post-
mortem report, which reads as under :-
"External General Appearance
Ligature Mark Present Parchment like ligature mark approx
14 cmx3cm on right side of neck till mid of
chin.
OPINION
Cause of Death
Death in this case in my opinion is hanging which is sufficient to cause
death is normal course of nature."
He thus submits that the scientific evidence in the form of post-
mortem report totally belies the alleged statement assigned to Ikattar
Singh while in police custody which otherwise also would be hit by
Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
CRM-M No. 64981 of 2023 (O&M) 333: 2024:PHHC:038541
Adjourned to 18.03.2024.
In the meantime, in the event of arrest, the petitioner shall be
released on interim bail subject to his furnishing personal and surety
bonds to the satisfaction of the arresting officer/Investigating Officer. As
and when called, the petitioner shall join the investigation. He shall
abide by the conditions enumerated under Section 438(2) of the Cr.P.C. "
2 Learned State counsel on instructions from ASI Balwinder
Singh has stated that pursuant to the order dated 05.01.2024 the petitioner
has joined investigation and is no longer required for custodial
interrogation.
3 In view of above, the interim order dated 05.01.2024 passed by
this Court is made absolute, subject to the conditions as enumerated under
Section 438(2) Cr.P.C.
4 This order should not be treated as "blanket" order. It will not
be read granting petitioner indefinite protection from arrest. It shall be
confined to the FIR mentioned ibid and will not operate in respect of any
other incident that involves commission of an offence.
5 This order does not in any manner limit or restrict the rights or
duties of the police or investigating agency, to investigate into the charges
against the petitioner.
6 The petitioner shall be deemed to be in custody for the purpose
of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 in regard to a discovery of facts
made in pursuance of information supplied by the petitioner in case the
occasion arises.
7 It will be open to the police or the investigating agency to move
this court for a direction under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. to arrest the accused,
in the event of violation of any term, such as absconding, non-cooperating
during investigation, evasion, intimidation or inducement to witnesses with
3024.03.19 11-54
T attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
order/judgment.
CRM-M No. 64981 of 2023 (O&M) 4s: 2024:PHHC:038541
a view to influence outcome of the investigation or trial.
8 Petition stands disposed off.
9 Needless to say that anything observed herein shall not be
construed to be an opinion on the merits of the case.
(PANKAJ JAIN )
JUDGE
18.03.2024
Pooja sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable : No
