Pardeep v. State Of Haryana

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22197-2021 Decided on : 28.07.2021 Pardeep . . . Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana . . . Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL (Through Video Conferencing) PRESENT: Mr. Ankit Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Ms. Tanushree Gupta, DAG, Haryana assisted by SI Rakesh.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL , J. (Oral) The instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 0001, dated 01.01.2021, under Sections 306, 34 of IPC (Section 34 IPC deleted later on), registered at Gohana City, District Sonepat. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had been married with the deceased for 11 years and no complaint, whatsoever, was ever made by the complainant against the petitioner or his family with respect to the alleged harassment meted out to the deceased. He further submits that no suicide note was left behind which could have in any way connected the petitioner with the crime in question and it is only on the basis of allegations levelled in the FIR, the petitioner is now being sought to be connected with the crime in question.

Learned counsel further submits that the essential ingredients to attract the mischief of Section 306 of IPC are clearly amiss in the case in hand. It has also been submitted that there is no likelihood of the trial concluding anytime in the near future, as only JAWALA RAM 2021.07.

CRM-M-22197-2021 - 2 - challan stands presented as on date.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner, on instructions from SI Rakesh, has apprised the Court that the petitioner made an extra judicial confession before a co-villager, wherein, he admitted that he had slapped the deceased a couple of times prior to the occurrence in question. However, learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the fact that prior to the occurrence in question, no complaint was ever made by the complainant party against the petitioner or his family with respect to the allegations levelled in the FIR in question.

Heard.

In view of the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that only challan stands presented and the petitioner has been in custody since 02nd April, 2021, I deem it a fit case for grant of the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. The petition as such is allowed and the petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) JUDGE July 28, 2021 J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No JAWALA RAM 2021.07.28 17:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document