Arvinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

CRM-M-15931 of 2020 [ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-15931 of 2020 Date of Decision : 23.06.2020 Arvinder Singh ..................................................................Petitioner

Versus

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

Present:

Mr. Amandeep Singh, 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. 368 dated 15.09.2017 under Sections 306, 304-B, 302 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar Jagraon, District Ludhiana.

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the FIR in question. In fact, the deceased, who was the wife of the petitioner, had been suffering from some medical ailments including depression which led to her unfortunate death on 04.03.2017. Thereafter, due to the emotions running high, the FIR in question was registered against the petitioner by the complainant party. However, during the trial none of the material witnesses including the complainant i.e. the mother of the deceased as well as the father of the deceased supported the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile. RUPINDER KAUR 2020.06.24 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-15931 of 2020 [ 2 ] The learned counsel has contended that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.03.2018 and the trial is unlikely to conclude any time in the near future.

Notice of motion.

On the asking of the court, Ms. Samina Dhir, DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the State. She has opposed the submissioins made by the learned counsel for the petitioner by contending that the deceased died an unnatural death in her matrimonial home. However, she has not been able to controvert the fact that the material witnesses including the complainant did not support the case of the prosecution and were declared hostile.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel and keeping in view that the petitioner has been in custody since 15.03.2018, 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 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 11:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document