Kiran v. State Of Haryana

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 28.04.2023 Kiran ...... Petitioner

Versus

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

Mr. Parminder Walia, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl. AG, Haryana.

**** Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.(Oral) 1.

Petitioner is seeking concession of interim regular bail for a period of twelve weeks in case FIR No.330 dated 16.08.2022 under Sections 148, 149 and 302 IPC and Section 25 of Arms Act registered at Police Station Sector 14, Panchkula.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case in hand and the only allegation levelled against her is that she had tried to destroy evidence by washing the clothes of co-accused on which there were blood stains of the deceased. He submits that the petitioner has a two year old child and in the circumstances, being a mother, her presence would be required so that her child can be brought up and nurtured properly.

3.

Per contra, learned State counsel on instructions has vehemently opposed the prayer and submissions made by counsel opposite by inviting the

-2contention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR (Annexure P-1). Learned State counsel submits that the petitioner was not only named in the FIR in question but had actively participated in the murder of the deceased Rajesh. Learned State counsel further submits that the petitioner was armed with a sharp edged weapon with which she inflicted an injury on the head of the deceased and even as per the postmortem report, the deceased had died on account of the injuries sustained by a sharp edged weapon. Learned State counsel still further submits that the petitioner has been continuously filing petition under Section 439 Cr.

PC for grant of regular bail on some pretext or the other and in case, she is extended the concession of bail, there is every likelihood that she could abscond or even tamper with material evidence, more so, since the prosecution evidence has not yet commenced. It has also been contended by learned State counsel that the husband of the petitioner is not an accused in the case in hand and hence, the ground on which the petitioner is seeking bail i.e. for nurturing her two years old child, deserves to be rejected. 4.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the relevant material available on record.

5.

The petitioner has not only been named in the FIR in question but has also been attributed injury with a sharp edged weapon on the head of the deceased. The FIR was promptly lodged after the occurrence in question. The husband of the petitioner is not an accused in the case in hand and still further, her child is being taken care of by her other family members including her husband and mother. The trial is at a very crucial stage and none of the material witnesses have been examined yet.

-36.

As a sequel to the above, this Court does not deem it fit to extend the concession of interim regular bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed. 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 28.04.2023 sonia Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No