Sushil Kumar v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-15094 of 2020 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-15094 of 2020 Date of Decision : 23.06.2020 Sushil Kumar .........................................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana.............................................................. Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL ...

Present:

Mr. Sandeep Gorsi, Advocate for the petitioner.

...

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral) Due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic, the case is taken up for hearing through video conferencing.

The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 150 dated 30.05.2019 under Sections 304-B, 201, 120-B IPC and alternative charge under Section 302, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Kosli, District Rewari, Haryana. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the deceased Anamika alias Chand, has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question on the basis of a concocted version. No overt act has been alleged against the petitioner in the FIR and only general and vague allegations of harassing the deceased qua the alleged demand of dowry have been levelled against him. It has further been contended that the petitioner, who is a 51 year old ex-serviceman, has been in custody since 22.6.2019 and as on date only one out of the 20 prosecution witnesses cited have been examined. Hence, it is unlikely that the trial RUPINDER KAUR 2020.06.24 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15094 of 2020 [ 2 ] would conclude any time in the near future.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the court, Ms. Dimple Jain, AAG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of the State.

The learned State counsel, on the other hand, while opposing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from Inspector Jagvir Singh, has submitted that the complainant has been examined and has supported the case of the prosecution. Hence, the concession of regular bail may not be extended to the petitioner as there are serious allegations levelled against him in the FIR in question.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel and keeping in view that the petitioner is a 51 year old man and has been in custody since 22.06.2019, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind bars as the trial is unlikely to conclude in the near future. I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail. Thus, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that any observation made herein above shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) 23.06.2020 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No RUPINDER KAUR 2020.06.24 15:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document