Harbans Singh
v.
State Of Punjab
(High Court Of Punjab And Haryana)
Criminal Miscelleanous No. 4739 of 2007 | 01-03-2007
Satish Kumar Mittal, J.
1. Petitioner Harbans Singh has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 191 dated 18.7.2006 under Section 304-B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.
2. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the order dated 20.11.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby bail application of the Petitioner has been dismissed.
In this case, it has been alleged that just before the alleged occurrence, the Petitioner, who is father-in-law of the deceased and is in custody since 26.7.2006, along with other co-accused demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for house repair.
3. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that initially, the husband of the deceased was not challaned, but subsequently, on the statement of the complainant, he has also been summoned under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial. Counsel further contends that the husband has been granted anticipatory bail and the wife of brother-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law of the deceased are in custody. He further contends that in view of the fact that the husband has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the two witnesses, already examined by the prosecution, have to be examined again and the trial is not likely to conclude soon.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts as well as the nature of allegations, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the Petitioner and he is, accordingly, ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
1. Petitioner Harbans Singh has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 191 dated 18.7.2006 under Section 304-B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.
2. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the order dated 20.11.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby bail application of the Petitioner has been dismissed.
In this case, it has been alleged that just before the alleged occurrence, the Petitioner, who is father-in-law of the deceased and is in custody since 26.7.2006, along with other co-accused demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for house repair.
3. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that initially, the husband of the deceased was not challaned, but subsequently, on the statement of the complainant, he has also been summoned under Section 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial. Counsel further contends that the husband has been granted anticipatory bail and the wife of brother-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law of the deceased are in custody. He further contends that in view of the fact that the husband has been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., the two witnesses, already examined by the prosecution, have to be examined again and the trial is not likely to conclude soon.
Keeping in view the aforesaid facts as well as the nature of allegations, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the Petitioner and he is, accordingly, ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Advocates List
For Petitioner : Mr. Surinder Garg, AdvocateFor Respondent : Mr. N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab
For Petitioner
- Shekhar Naphade
- Mahesh Agrawal
- Tarun Dua
For Respondent
- S. Vani
- B. Sunita Rao
- Sushil Kumar Pathak
Bench List
HON'BLE JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
Eq Citation
2007 (3) RCR (CRIMINAL) 511
LQ/PunjHC/2007/313
HeadNote
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — S. 439 — Bail — Regular bail — Fatherinlaw of deceased alleged to have demanded Rs 50,000 for house repair — Husband of deceased subsequently summoned under S. 319 CrPC — Husband granted anticipatory bail — Wife of brotherinlaw and motherinlaw of deceased in custody — Two witnesses already examined by prosecution have to be examined again — Trial not likely to conclude soon — Held, regular bail granted (Paras 2 and 3)
Thank you for subscribing! Please check your inbox to opt-in.
Oh no, error happened! Please check the email address and/or try again.