Bua Singh v. State Of Punjab
CRM-M-20286 of 2019 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M- 20286 of 2019 Date of Decision: 24.10.2019 Bua Singh ....Petitioner
VERSUS
State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURINDER GUPTA
Present:
Mr. Mandeep S. Bedi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Gagandeep Kaur, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amitoj Singh Dhaliwal, DAG, Punjab Mr. A.S. Bhatti, 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. 38 dated 24.08.2016 registered for offences punishable under Sections 302, 506 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, "IPC") and 25 of the Arms Act, at Police Station Kahnuwan, District Gurdaspur. (Offences punishable under Sections 379 and 411 IPC were added later on). Heard.
Learned State counsel submits that the prosecution has already concluded its evidence and the case is now fixed for defence evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the prosecution has concluded its evidence but in the cross-case evidence has not been concluded so far.
It is disclosed that petitioner is complainant in cross-case and JITENDER KUMAR 2019.10.24 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
CRM-M-20286 of 2019 -2two doctors have been examined. However, petitioner is not coming forth for his statement as complainant and to examine other injured. For these reasons the lapse of pendency of trial in cross-case cannot be attributed to prosecution. Petitioner may expedite production of his witnesses before the trial Court.
No reason is made out to extend the benefit of regular bail to petitioner at this stage as the prosecution has already concluded its evidence.
October 24, 2019 ( SURINDER GUPTA ) jk JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No JITENDER KUMAR 2019.10.24 17:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh