Allowed

Sumitra Devi v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2013CRM-M/16803/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted regular bail to the petitioner in a case involving offences under Sections 302, 323, 449, and 34 IPC. The court found the bail petition meritorious, noting the petitioner's gender, lack of prior criminal history, and insufficient evidence of her direct involvement in the initial FIR.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail by furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Sumitra Devi Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM No.M-16803 of 2013

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-16803 of 2013 Date of Decision:28.05.2013

¶5

Sumitra Devi .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR.

¶9

Present: Mr.Vijay Sangwan, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr.Gourav Verma, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶11

Mr.Sandeep Kumar Yadav, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶12

¶13

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶14

Petitioner-Sumitra Devi has directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against her along with her husband and main accused Mahabir Singh and Mahesh, vide FIR No.353 dated 10.09.2012, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 323, 449 and 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station City Narnaul, District Mahendergarh, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

¶15

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going

¶17

through the record with their valuable help and after considering the

¶18

CRM No.M-16803 of 2013 2

¶19

entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

¶20

The complainant-Manoj Kumar, nephew of deceased-Anand Kumar put the police machinery into motion. According to his initial version, which formed the basis of FIR, only main accused-Mahabir Singh has caused injuries with sua to the deceased. Neither the name of the petitioner is mentioned, nor any injury or overt-act is attributed to her in the FIR. She was subsequently involved in this case on the statement of Sharda, wife of the deceased, that she(petitioner) has also caught hold of her husband while main accused-Mahabir Singh caused injuries to the deceased. Prima facie, it appears to be an improvement after due deliberation and consultation.

¶21

Moreover, the petitioner is a lady and she was arrested on 17.09.2012. Since then she is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining her in jail. There is no history of her previous involvement in any other criminal case. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

¶22

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶23

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above,

¶24

CRM No.M-16803 of 2013 3

¶25

would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present

¶26

petition for regular bail.

¶27

May 28, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Sumitra Devi v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumitra Devi v. State of Haryana

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

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

Bachittar Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Subhash Vs State of Haryana

Parvej Akhtar etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Harmeet Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Kulwant Singh @ Sodhi Vs State of Punjab