Section 319 CrPC High Court Chandigarh Judgment

Last Updated on September 9, 2024 by Satish Mishra

This post is a case digest wherein petitioners were summoned in 498 A Offences under Sec 319 of CrPC and later applied for Anticipatory bails under Sec 438 CrPC. Since the names of petitioner were kept in column no. 2 of the challan, they were called in for joining the investigation. The benefit of interim bail was granted to the petitioners.

In the present case, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, seeking a grant of anticipatory bail in a case registered against them vide FIR No.51 dated 24.03.2017 under Section 304-B/498A/506/511/34 IPC at Raman Police Station, District Bathinda.

Jagtar Singh alias Taar And Others vs State Of Punjab on 8 November 2019

Also Read- Anticipatory Bail in 498a Cases

Section 319 Cr.P.C empowers the court to proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such persons can be tried together with the accused. It further states that a person can be added as an accused not only for the same offence for which the accused is tried but for “any offence”; but that offence shall be such that in respect of which all the accused could be tried together.

Section 438 Cr.P.C defines Anticipatory Bail. Section 438(1) lays down that a person may seek an anticipatory bail if he expects that he may get arrested on accusation of committing a non-bailable offence.

Also Read- Fighting False 498a & 406 Ipc Case

The FIR was lodged by one Tikka Singh wherein it was stated that his sister Simranjeet Kaur was married to one Karamdeep Singh and although the complainant had spent a hefty amount of money on the marriage her sister’s in-laws were not happy. Shortly after the marriage Simranjeet’s husband, her sister-in-law, one Kirandeep Kaur, and her parents-in-law started harassing her and coerced her for additional dowry.

The complainant had further alleged that Karamdeep Singh was detained in Central Jail for committing a murder.

Also Read- Where to File 498a and Dowry Case in 2019?

On 23.03.2017 at about 8 p.m. the complainant spoke to his sister who informed him that her sister-in-law and mother-in-law have threatened her to leave the matrimonial home and go to her parental house and if she declined to do so, she would be eliminated. The complainant assured his sister that he would visit her matrimonial house in the morning and would bring her back. However, later that night at about 11 p.m the complainant received a call from a neighbour of her sister’s in-laws. The neighbour told the complainant that her sister had caught fire. The complainant hurried to Civil Hospital, Bathinda and arrived there at about 1 a.m. where he learned that his sister had been shifted and admitted to a private hospital where she struggled with life. It was submitted by the prosecution that the complainant’s sister could not survive and succumbed to her burn injuries.

Also Read- High Court Chandigarh Quashing of FIR in Matrimonial Disputes

The counsel for the petitioners contended that the matter has been investigated and upon conclusion of the same the petitioners were found to be innocent while the charge sheet was presented against the husband of the deceased i.e. Karamdeep Singh. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that on the basis of false allegations of the complainant during the proceedings of trial, the petitioners had already been summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. It was thus, submitted that since the charge sheet had already been presented and the petitioners have already appeared before the Trial Court, no reasonable objective would be fulfilled by putting the petitioners behind the bars at this stage

Also Read- Quashing of FIR 498A 406 IPC High Court Chandigarh

The learned State counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant opposed the petition and submitted that the petitioners have been specifically named in the FIR and their role in harassing the deceased is all the more evident, given the fact the at the deceased’s husband was already behind the bars for about 3 months prior to the death of Simranjeet Kaur. And the fact that the deceased resided with the petitioners cannot be disregarded.

Also Read- 498A Latest Update by Supreme Court

The counsel for the complainant strongly questioned the role of the investigating agency and dubbed it as dubious. The counsel contended that the investigating agency has shielded the petitioners by keeping their names in column no. 2 and by filing the charge sheet only against the deceased’s husband who was in custody at the time of the death of the complainant’s sister. At this juncture, the counsel for the State pointed out that the role of the petitioners as well as Karamdeep Singh, deceased’s husband, is evident from the fact that the deceased had gone to her husband In jail on the day of the occurrence itself and committed suicide shortly after.

Also Read- 498A 406 IPC Anticipatory Bail High Court Chandigarh

After hearing both the counsels the Court refrained from making any remark on the role of the investigating agency which for some reason had kept the name of the petitioner sin column no.2 despite the fact that they were all living under the same roof and were well placed to harass the deceased. However, the fact persists that the petitioners have all been summoned with the aid of Sec. 319 Cr.P.C. and that would essentially mean that are not to be associated with any kind of investigation and are not obliged to be interrogated in custody. Accordingly, under the aforementioned circumstances, the detention of the petitioner is not appropriate, the Court held.

Thus, the Court allowed the petitioner appeal of grant of interim bail but imposed a condition that the petitioner shall appear regularly before the Trial Court and shall abide by the conditions imposed by the Hon’ble Court.

1 thought on “Section 319 CrPC High Court Chandigarh Judgment”