Veerpal Kaur (Now Confined In Central Jail, Bathinda) v. State Of Punjab

[ 1 ]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : January 22, 2018 Veerpal Kaur .............................................................Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab ......................................................... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL ...

Present:

Mr. A.S.Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Monika Jalota, DAG, Punjab.

...

LISA GILL, J. (Oral) The petitioner who is the married sister-in-law of the deceased seeks the concession of bail pending trial in FIR No.103 dated 29.09.2017 under Sections 306, 341, 323 IPC registered at Police Station Gidderbaha, District Sri Muktsar Sahib.

It is submitted that the petitioner was married about 10 years prior to the marriage of the deceased with the petitioner's brother. She has no concern with the matrimonial life of her brother and the deceased. No offence punishable under Section 306 IPC is made out against the petitioner. In fact, the petitioner's sister-in-law (deceased) was aggrieved of the action of her father-in-law in not transferring the share of the petitioner's brother in joint property. A statement was made by the victim on 13.09.2017

[ 2 ] itself at Civil Hospital, Gidderbaha (Annexure P3) wherein the dispute regarding the property is clearly mentioned and it is stated by the victim that she used to remain under mental tension and depression due to the said dispute. On 13.09.2017 the victim was distressed, she started scolding her father-in-law and being fed up by the daily harassment she consumed insecticide. The victim passed away after fifteen days on 28.09.2017. Moreover, similarly situated co-accused Palo has been afforded the concession of anticipatory bail by this Court on 15.01.2018 in CRM-M48321 of 2017. It is, thus prayed that this petition be allowed. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Kishore Chand, informs that the final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C.

has been presented against the petitioner who is not reported to be involved in any other criminal case. It is not denied that the co-accused Palo who is similarly situated has been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. There are no allegations that the petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. Trial of the case is not likely to conclude in the near future. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated any longer.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case noted above but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, the petitioner be released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate.

None of the observations made here-in-above shall be

[ 3 ] construed to be a reflection on merits of the case and shall have no bearing on trial.

( LISA GILL ) 22.01.2018 JUDGE rupi Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable:

Yes / No