← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/4266/2021allowed

Gopal v. State Of Haryana

2022-02-22Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan2 pages

CRM-M-4266-2021

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-4266-2021 Date of Decision: 22nd February, 2022 Gopal

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN

Present:

Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Bhupender Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Ms. Geeta Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. AVNEESH JHINGAN, J. (Oral) 1.

This is a petition for grant of regular bail in FIR No. 215, dated 15th November, 2020, under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC (Section 120-B IPC was added later on), registered at Police Station Nighdu, District Karnal.

2.

As per the contents of the FIR, complainant Geeta wife of Jitender Passi stated that marriage of her daughter Renu was solemnized with Rajesh in June, 2018. As per the telephonic conversation with her daughter on 14th November, 2020, there was a quarrel between the husband and wife. On 15th November, 2020, Renu expired and was cremated before her parents could reach. The role attributed to the petitioner is that he is a co-villager and on his asking, body of the deceased was cremated. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22nd December, 2020, the investigation is complete and the PRASHANT KAPOOR 2022.02.22 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

CRM-M-4266-2021 material witnesses while deposing, have not supported the case of the prosecution.

4.

Learned State counsel opposes the prayer and submits that the petitioner was one of the conspirators.

5.

Without commenting upon merits of the case and on the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses, considering the custody period, nature of allegations against the petitioner and the fact that conclusion of trial is likely to take time, the petitioner is granted bail, subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.

6.

The petition is allowed.

7.

It is clarified that observations made here-in-above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. (AVNEESH JHINGAN) JUDGE 22nd February, 2022 Pkapoor Whether Speaking/Reasoned:

YES/NO Whether Reportable:

YES/NO PRASHANT KAPOOR 2022.02.22 17:53 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document