Allowed interim order directing trial court to conclude prosecution evidence within two months and decide case within next two months, with bail entitlement if delayed.
Trial court to conclude prosecution evidence within two months from January 12, 2013 and decide case within next two months; release petitioner on bail if delay occurs.
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.
CRM M-25273 of 2012 (O&M) [1]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CRM M-25273 of 2012 (O&M)
Date of Decision: December 14, 2012
Amit Aggarwal
…..Petitioner
Vs.
State of Haryana
…..Respondent
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.
-.-
Present:Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Mr.S.S. Dinarpur, Advocate for complainant.
-.-
M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)
Petitioner is husband of deceased Nidhi, who had died within 7 years of her marriage, an unnatural death. There are allegations of cruelty and demand of dowry.
Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the material witnesses i.e. father and brother of the deceased have already been examined. There is no apprehension of threatening or inducing the
CRM M-25273 of 2012 (O&M) [2]
witnesses and that the petitioner is required to produce effective defence evidence.
State counsel and counsel for the complainant inform that all the witnesses stand examined and only two witnesses remain to be examined. Next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court is January 12, 2013.
Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances and going through the statements of Rishi Raj PW1 and Nitin Garg PW2 this Court is of the consideration opinion that it will not be appropriate at this stage to enter into the niceties of the trial to determine whether the statutory presumption of Evidence Act against the petitioner stands rebutted by the material available on record. It is deemed appropriate in the interest of justice, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in custody w.e.f. August 27, 2011, to order that the trial Court will conclude the entire prosecution evidence within a period of two months from the next date of hearing fixed before the trial Court and would decide the case within a period of next two months thereafter giving fair opportunity to the petitioner to produce defence evidence. In case the trial is not concluded within a period of 4 months after January 12, 2013, or the prosecution evidence is not concluded within 2 months after next date of hearing i.e. January 12, 2013, the trial Court will be entitled to release the petitioner on bail, on an application of the petitioner filed before said Court. Copy of the order be communicated to the trial Court by the Registry.
CRM M-25273 of 2012 (O&M) [3]
| Disposed of. | |
|---|---|
| December 14 , 2012 | (M.M.S.BEDI) |
| sanjay | JUDGE |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether statutory presumption of evidence against the petitioner could be rebutted by material on record.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Amit Aggarwal
State of Haryana
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
