Jitender v. State Of Haryana

  
      
 

!"

"#$%$ & '((
    

       
 ) * ( +
 + + 

    


         !

"

   #  

    $$$$ + +  , ( -. /0 % &   '   ()* +   +  , , '   -./ %0% 01 02 2022   )02.

+ , 

   

!    It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the present case the petitioner is in custody from 25.04.2022 which is almost 11⁄2 years and now 14 prosecution witnesses out of 22, including all the material witnesses have been examined. He submitted that the deceased was the wife of the petitioner who was drowned alongwith a car and as per the prosecution, the petitioner had thrown the car into the canal. He submitted that at the time of deposition of some of the witnesses who are the relatives of the deceased no offence is made out so far as the

present petitioner is concerned since the story put forward by the prosecution was at variance with the deposition of the other prosecution witnesses including the material witnesses. He further submitted that be that as it may, the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about 11⁄2 years and now all the material prosecution witnesses i.e. 14 out of 22 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. No useful purpose would be served in case the custody of the petitioner is perpetuated particularly in view of the fact that the entire case is based upon circumstantial evidence only.

3.

On the other hand,     !

"

 has stated that it is correct that the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about 11⁄2 years and it is also correct that 14 prosecution witnesses out of 22, including all the material witnesses have already been examined. He has however opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner on the ground that he is involved in one more case under Section 420 IPC.

4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

It is a case where the petitioner has already faced incarceration for about 11⁄2 years and 14 prosecution witnesses out of 22, including all the material witnesses have already been examined. The present case appears to be based upon circumstantial evidence. The mere fact that the petitioner is involved in one case under Section 420 IPC would not disentitle the petitioner for grant of regular bail. + 3  the present petition is allowed. & 

'   ,   '

      3         '#      ,  '

'

                    + 4!  , 

  

  6 , '

'



 '  7

        

         -+ + 0   1/2 ',      8 ,  9 4/

8 '

 9 4/