Subhash v. State Of Haryana

CRM-M-46654-2023 (O&M) 1 . 2024:PHHC:015556

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-46654-2023 (O&M) Date of decision: 05.02.2024 Subhash

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL

Present:

Mr. K.P.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioner.

Ms. Trishanjali Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

**** MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

1.

The petitioner is seeking concession of bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C. in case FIR No.585 dated 29.09.2018 under Sections 148, 149, 201, 302 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, registered at Police Station Safidon, District Jind.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that he has been in custody since 29.09.2018 and till date the trial has not concluded, hence, on this ground alone, the petitioner deserves to be extended the concession of bail. It has also been submitted that a false and fabricated case has been planted upon the petitioner for allegedly conspiring with the co-accused and murdering his sister-in-law Pinki, on 29.09.2018. 3.

Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite has submitted that no doubt the petitioner has been in custody since 29.09.2018, however, the trial is nearing the conclusion as the prosecution evidence stands recorded and now SATYAWAN 2024.02.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CRM-M-46654-2023 (O&M) 2 . 2024:PHHC:015556 the case is fixed for 06.02.2024 for recording the evidence of the defence. Learned State counsel has further submitted that the petitioner along with co-accused i.e. husband of the deceased conspired to eliminate her as they doubted her character. All the prosecution witnesses had supported the case of the prosecution. She has submitted that besides the present FIR, the petitioner is also involved in two other criminal cases. Learned State counsel has still further submitted that the trial would not now take much time to conclude.

4.

Heard.

5.

The trial is nearing conclusion, coupled with the fact that all the prosecution witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution; the petitioner is also involved in two other criminal cases, this Court, therefore, in the above facts and circumstances, does not deem it fit to enlarge the petitioner on bail at this stage.

6.

Dismissed.

7.

The trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within two months from today in view of the long incarceration of the petitioner.

8.

However, it is made clear that anything observed hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

05.02.2024 (MANJARI NEHRU KAUL) Satyawan JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No SATYAWAN 2024.02.06 14:13 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document