Punam Rani v. State Of Punjab

 
 

 ! " #   
 "  



   "

$%"%&''(  
  

 



 


    

)
     

 



 


    

 ( *!+  ,
 ,  ,


   



 



 

 !!"#$"" %&%%  ' '

 



 

 !!()&*) %&%%  +',-

.
 ////  ,  ,

 - ./ 0) 

  - 



' '1



'

 '



 

  

 23

 ,



 

0  0' '23 &&44

&5 &( %&%% 



 #&%#"3
6 





 #&%3


 '









 #&43
 '

7 0

 
'

    , 8''9



2:'- ;earned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner (in

 !!43744 of 2022) is in custody from 10.08.2022 and the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner (in !!51081 of 2022) is in custody from 02.08.2022. They have submitted that the investigation of the case has already been completed and thereafter, challan has been presented before the competent Court. It is submitted that initially the FIR was registered under Section 302 IPC since the allegations in the FIR were with regard to causing of death by putting Parna around the neck. However, during the course of investigation police found that it was not a case of 302 IPC but it was a case under the provisions of Section 306 IPC because an audio recording was recovered in which it was stated by the deceased that he was committing suicide because he had a doubt that the petitioner Rano Bai @ Rani had illicit relation with Mukhtiar Singh, who is a coaccused. Learned counsels further submitted that the aforesaid co-accused Mukhtiar Singh has already been granted bail by this Court under the provisions of Section 438

'

 vide order dated 20.09.2022 in !!41214 of 2022. They further submitted that be that as it may, now challan has been presented under Section 306 IPC and even as per the audio recording which was allegedly recovered itself demolishes the prosecution story by which the allegation was made with regard to committing of murder. Learned counsel further submitted that even going by the audio recording itself assuming even for the sake of arguments still the ingredients of Sections 306 and 107 IPC are not fulfilled because there was no element of abetment and therefore, offence under Section 306 IPC was not made out.

On the other hand,  +',-'

.
 on instructions has submitted that it is correct that the petitioner (in !!43744 of

2022) is in custody from 10.08.2022 and the petitioner (in !!51081 of 2022) is in custody from 02.08.2022 and the investigation of the case has already been completed and the challan has been presented to the competent Court after deleting Section 302 IPC and after adding Section 306 IPC. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is a case where earlier the FIR was lodged under Section 302 IPC but during the course of investigation, the police had deleted Section 302 IPC and inserted Section 306 IPC and the investigation of the case has been completed and the trial of the case may take long time. The other co-accused namely Mukhtiar Singh has already been granted bail under the provisions of Section 438

'

 by this Court.

Therefore, without commenting anything on the merits of the case, this Court deems it fit and proper to grant the concession of regular bail to both the petitioners. Consequently, 



   ''

 < 

 

''

'

  0' '

 0' =

,

 



'

' 

=9 ,0

  >

, 0 



''





?     

 

  ',  

   

 

 

    . ,  ,

)

" 1%23%/ -     @

 -0  =

@



'

 =