Single Judge granted bail to the petitioner in a murder case where the sole allegation against him was presence at the scene while his wife was set on fire, noting trial continuation and lack of specific charges.
The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl. Misc. No. M-14719 of 2009
Date of Decision : August 20, 2009
Jagdeep Singh s/o Bahadur Singh
.... Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. D.S.Gurna, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. D.R.Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
In the present case, a statement was given by the deceased wife of the petitioner that she was being harassed while she was doing her household work. On 02.04.2008 at about 8/9 A.M., her mother-in-law Surinder Kaur put kerosine oil on her and set her on fire with the help of match stick. It has further been stated that her father-in-law was not present but her husband was present there.
Counsel for the petitioner contends that what is alleged in the statement, on the basis of which the FIR came into existence, could be treated as a dying declaration as no subsequent statement could be recorded of the deceased, is that the petitioner was present there. No overt act whatsoever has been attributed to him. The clear cut and
Crl. Misc. No. M-14719 of 2009
-2-
specific allegations are against her mother-in-law Surinder Kaur, who is alleged to have poured kerosine oil and then set her on fire with a match stick. On this basis, he submits that the petitioner deserves to be released on bail. He further contends that the petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2008 and in the light of the FIR and the period, for which the petitioner is in custody and the trial is still continuing , the petitioner may be enlarged on bail.
Counsel for the State submits that out of 22 witnesses, 17 witnesses have either been examined or have given up and only 5 witnesses are left and the case is now fixed for 24.08.2009.
Counsel for the complainant submits that the petitioner is the husband of the deceased and, therefore, has the responsibility to protect his wife, therefore, he should not be released on bail at this stage.
I have heard the counsel for the parties.
In view of the fact that the allegation, which has been made in the FIR against the present petitioner by the deceased, is only that he was present there but no overt act has been attributed to him and further keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 03.04.2008 and still the trial is continuing as five more witnesses are yet to be examined, the trial is not likely to conclude soon, further incarceration of the petitioner is not required.
In view of the above, the present application is allowed.
The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
August 20, 2009 pj
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner, alleged to be present during the offence but with no overt act attributed to him, deserves release on bail.
Jagdeep Singh
State of Punjab
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
