Tarsem Kaur v. State Of Punjab

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:20.7.2015 Tarsem Kaur --Petitioner.

Vs.

State of Punjab --Respondent.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks bail pending trial in FIR No. 193 dated 1.10.2013 under Section 304-B IPC, registered at Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, Mr. Daljit Singh Virk, AAG, Punjab, accepts notice.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no specific allegations against the petitioner. All the allegations levelled against the petitioner are general in nature. Petitioner being an old lady, is suffering from age related ailments. He further submits that although petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased, yet she had no role to play, because she was staying separately from the deceased and her husband. Petitioner in inside the jail for the last

more than 1 year and 8 months. He concluded by submitting that since trial is not making desired progress because of pendency of proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C., petitioner is entitled for the concession of bail pending trial. He prays for allowing the present petition.

On the other hand, learned counsel for the State, on instructions from H.C. Manjit Singh, Police Station Sultanpur Lodhi, District Kapurthala, submits that petitioner was one of the main accused. She had been harassing the complainant right from the day one of her marriage. He further submits that deceased was having just 2 years old son when she was forced to take the extreme step of suicide. It was the petitioner who forced the deceased to take this extreme step. So far as progress of trial is concerned, he submits that out of total 11 PWs, 2 PWs have already been examined and the next date of hearing before the learned trial court is 27.7.2015. There is no delay as such in the trial, as wrongly alleged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, and the same shall be concluded within a reasonable time. He prays for dismissal of the present petition.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length, after careful perusal of the record of the case and giving thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the given fact situation of the present case, petitioner has not been found entitled for the concession of bail pending trial. It is so said, because petitioner is mother-in-law of the deceased and as per allegations levelled in the

FIR, she had been harassing the deceased right from the day of her marriage. Since out of total 11 PWs, 2 PWs have already been examined and the next date of hearing 27.7.2015, no delay is being caused by the prosecuting agency.

In view of the above and without commenting anything further on the merits of the case, at this stage, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, no case for bail pending trial is made out.

Dismissed.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 20.7.2015 AK Sharma