← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/46003/2016allowed

Titu Ram v. State Of Chd

2017-02-02Mr. Justice Avneesh Jhingan3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

Sr. No. 206 Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-46003 of 2016 Date of Decision : February 02, 2017 Titu Ram ....

Petitioner vs.

State of U.T., Chandigarh ....

Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK SIBAL.

* * * Present :

Mr. Suresh Pal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Gautam Dutt, APP, for U. T., Chandigarh.

* * * DEEPAK SIBAL , J.

:

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for the grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 132 dated 01.07.2016, registered under Sections 323, 307, 302, 34 IPC, at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rekha - wife of the petitioner, who has been attributed a similar role, had approached this Court for the grant of regular bail through Crl. Misc. No. M-43532 of 2016, which, through order dated 21.12.2016, was allowed by observing as under :- "Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.132 dated 1.7.2016 under Sections 323, 307, 302, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Sector 36, Chandigarh.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the role attributed to the petitioner is that she has caught hold of the hand of Rahul, the injured. Even the injury caused to Rahul is on the non-vital part of his body, as the knife injury was given on the right hand of Rahul. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 1.7.2016 and considering the fact that trial in the case will take long time, she be released on bail.

Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Manjit Singh, does not dispute the custody of the petitioner, however, he submits that the petitioner was one of the participants in the crime and therefore, she is not entitled for bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Admittedly, the role attributed to the petitioner is that she has caught hold of Rahul, the injured and even the injury caused to him is on the non-vital part of the body. The petitioner is in custody since 1.7.2016 and only one prosecution witness has been examined so far. Since trial in the case will take long time, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner deserves to be admitted on bail.

Accordingly, without adverting to merits of the case, the present petition is allowed

and the petitioner is admitted on regular bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to furnishing of his bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.

It is made clear that observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as any expression on the merits of the case."

It is submitted that since the role attributed to the petitioner and Rekha is similar, on the principle of parity, the petitioner also deserves the concession of regular bail.

Learned State counsel does not dispute the factual position. In view of the above, the petitioner is also ordered to be admitted to regular bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to furnishing of his bail bonds/surety bonds, to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Chandigarh.

Nothing observed herein above shall be considered as an expression of opinion by this Court on the merits of the case. ( DEEPAK SIBAL ) JUDGE February 02, 2017 monika Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No.

Whether reportable ?

Yes/No.