Asha v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-18693-2025 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-18693-2025 Date of Decision: 09.04.2025 ASHA ... PETITIONER

VERSUS

STATE OF HARYANA ... RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.GREWAL Present:- Mr. Parveen Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. H.S. Grewal, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner is seeking regular bail under Section 483 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier Section 439 of Cr.P.C) in FIR No. 141 dated 10.03.2023 (Annexure P-1) registered under Section 302 of IPC (later Section 34 of IPC added) at Police Station Sonipat City, District Sonipat.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been implicated in the present case on the statement of the complainant wherein he named the petitioner along with the co-accused namely Sagar in the alleged incident. He further submits that co-accused Sagar had given stab blows with Sua to the deceased and the petitioner had caught hold of the deceased. The petitioner is not involved in any other criminal case. 3.

Notice of motion.

4.

Mr. Parveen Kumar Aggarwal, DAG, Haryana appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. Learned State counsel vehemently opposes the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground that Renu Rawat 2025.04.09 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-18693-2025 -2the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature. He has filed the custody certificate of the petitioner, which is taken on record. As per the custody certificate, the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years, 12 days. Learned State counsel further submits that out of 20 cited prosecution witnesses only 6 have been examined.

5.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6.

In view of the above submission of learned counsels and the fact that the petitioner is a lady; the trial is likely to take long time; the petitioner is in custody for the last more than two years and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, I deem it a fit case to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. 7.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

8.

It is clarified that if, on bail so granted through the instant order, the applicant is found indulging in any other criminal case it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of his bail.

(H.S.GREWAL) 09.04.2025 JUDGE renu Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No Renu Rawat 2025.04.09 16:33 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document