Disposed

Sunita Devi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Feb 2009CRM-M/31847/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged an order denying bail in a murder and dowry death case. The court observed the gravity of the offence but noted the petitioner was similarly situated to co-accused who had been granted anticipatory bail, indicating relief may be granted on the basis of parity.

What did the court decide?

The court indicated that the petitioner may be admitted to bail on the basis of the rule of parity with similarly situated co-accused.

Sunita Devi Vs State of Punjab — Domestic Violence | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CRM No.M 31847 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 4.2.2009.

Sunita Devi

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HARBANS LAL

¶9

Present: Mr.SS Majithia, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

Mr.TS Salana, DAG, Punjab

¶11

Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the complainant

¶12

¶13

Harbans Lal, J.

¶14

This petition has been moved by Sunita Devi petitioner under Section 439 of Cr.P.C. seeking her regular bail in case FIR No.91 dated 30.4.2008 registered under Sections 498-A, 324, 34 of IPC and Section 304B of IPC at Police Station Islamabad Amrtisar.

¶15

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

The facts in brief of the prosecution case are that as per Annexure P-1 statement of Nidhi Suri deceased, her sister in law (nanad) namely Ruhi ran away from the house in order to get marry with somebody, but returned without marrying him. As such, her husband Makhan Suri, mother in law Sunita Devi (referring to the petitioner) and sister in law (nanad) and brother in law (dever) pressurised her and used to blame her that she is responsible for the same. Today, they (referring to the accused including petitioner) all in connivance with each other turned the gas on and asked her to cook “Bhartha” and they went out. When she started

¶17

CRM No.M 31847 of 2008 (O&M)

¶18

-2-

¶19

cooking, she caught fire. Her whole body got burnt. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with great eloquence that as would be apparent from Annexure P-2, copy of the order dated 22.8.2008 passed by this Court, Ruhi and Dinesh Kumar, who were similarly situated to the petitioner have been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court. He further puts that the petitioner is in custody since 28.8.2008. In these premises, the petitioner may be admitted to bail.

¶20

To tide over these submissions, Mr.TS Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab being assisted by Mr.Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the complainant, urged with great eloquence that keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the petitioner being the mother in law of the deceased does not deserve to be admitted to bail. This contention merits rejection. Needless to say, the petitioner is similarly situated to her co-accused Ruhi as well as Dinesh Kumar who as noted supra, have been admitted to anticipatory bail by this Court. By applying the rule of parity, the concession of bail is required to be bestowed upon her as well. The completion of the trial is likely to take a considerable time. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar.

¶21

(Harbans Lal) Judge

¶22

February 4, 2009 gsv

Sunita Devi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sunita Devi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jugraj Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another

Jasbir Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Devinder Kumar Vs State of Punjab

Didar Singh & Anor. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kulwant Singh Vs State of Punjab

Hardeep Singh Vs State of Punjab