Neeru v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-31551-2018 -1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH.

Crl. Misc. No.M-31551 of 2018 (O&M) Date of Decision: October 22, 2018.

Neeru ..........PETITIONER(s).

VERSUS

State of Haryana ........RESPONDENT(s).

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA

Present:

Mr. Ravinder Bangar, Advocate for the petitioner (s).

Mr. Dimple Jain, A.A.G. Haryana.

Mr. Aayush Gupta, Advocate for the complainant.

******* SURINDER GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 218 dated 01.11.2017 registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Babain, District Kurukshetra.

Heard.

It is a case, where petitioner is facing trial for the murder of her husband Bhushan Kumar. As per prosecution, she administered some poisonous substance to him.

Learned State counsel submits that prosecution evidence has SACHIN MEHTA 2018.10.25 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-31551-2018 -2been closed but the supplementary challan is to be produced to place on record the conversation of petitioner with her paramour, who had supplied her the tablets of sulfas, which she administered to her husband. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the only purpose of complainant party to falsely implicate the petitioner is to deprive her of her share in the property which she has to inherit after the death of her husband. It is nowhere stated that the mobile from where the police has taken the chat, which is to be produced before the court, belongs to the petitioner.

State along with its reply dated 06.10.2018 has produced detailed chat and the call details of the mobile, which the petitioner had with her alleged paramour. The details of chat reflect towards the plan to murder husband of petitioner. One of the message states that she had killed her husband on the asking of her paramour.

Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances and that it is a case based on circumstantial evidence, I find no reason to extend the benefit of regular bail to the petitioner at this stage. The application seeking regular bail filed by the petitioner is dismissed. However, the trial Court is directed to expedite the trial and try to dispose of the case preferably within 4 months. Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court.

( SURINDER GUPTA ) October 22, 2018 JUDGE Sachin M.

Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SACHIN MEHTA 2018.10.25 15:44 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH