Allowed

Soma Kaur v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC29 May 2013CRM-M/11804/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petition was for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC in a case involving Sections 363, 366A, 376 IPC. Counsel argued the petitioner had no concern with the main accused, was detained since 01.01.2013, investigation was complete, and trial would take long. No objections were raised by the State.

What did the court decide?

Application for regular bail under Section 439 CrPC allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Bathinda.

Soma Kaur Vs State of Punjab — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-11804 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Crl. Misc. No. M- 11804 of 2013(O&M) Date of Decision: May 29, 2013.

Soma Kaur

...... PETITIONER(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

...... RESPONDENT (s)

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA

¶11

Present: Mr. KBS Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mrs. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.

¶13

¶14

RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)

¶15

The present petition has been filed for regular bail under Section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure in FIR no.130 dated 24.12.2012, under Sections 363/366A/376/342/34/120B IPC, registered at police station Nahianwala, District Bathinda.

¶16

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Adhoc), Fast Track Court, Bathinda dismissing bail application filed on behalf of the petitioner.

¶17

CRM No.M-11804 of 2013

¶18

¶19

It has been contended by learned counsel for petitioner-accused that she is a lady and that she is having no concern with the main accused, Gurvinder Singh. It is further contended that even as per allegations made by the prosecutrix, she alongwith Gurvinder Singh was brought to the house of present petitioner-accused by her husband. It is further contended that rather petitioner-accused had informed the mother of Gurvinder Singh regarding the said fact. It is also contended that she has been continuing in custody since 01.01.2013 and that investigation already completed and challan filed and however, trial is not likely to be concluded in near future.

¶20

The factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the State.

¶21

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

¶22

Hence, keeping in view these facts and without expressing any opinion on merits, the instant application for regular bail filed on behalf of Soma Kaur is allowed.

¶23

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Bathinda.

¶24

( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶25

May 29, 2013. ‘om’

Soma Kaur v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Soma Kaur 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

Rulia Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kala Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sunny Vs State of Haryana

Tarsem Lal Vs State of Punjab

Sandeep Alias Boxer Vs State of Haryana

Jaspal Kaur Vs State of Punjab