The High Court of Punjab and Haryana directed the prosecution to conclude evidence within six months to ensure a fair trial for the petitioner detained over a year in an undertrial sentence.
Directed prosecution to conclude evidence within six months; petitioner can approach court again for bail if not met.
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.
Cr.Misc. M 30418 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Cr.Misc. M 30418 of 2012 Date of decision:- 12.3.2013
Satnam singh @ Kala
Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab
Respondent
Present: Mr. PS Hundal, Sr.Advocat with Mr. Manu Loona, Advocate. Mr. Ankur Jain,AAG, Punjab.
M.M.S.BEDI,J.
The petitioner has been in custody for the last more than 1 ½ years. Counsel for the petitioner has inter alia questioned the propriety of charges u/s 306 IPC and in the alternative u/s 302 IPC to contend that the allegations against the petitioner are apparently false and concocted. On the other hand, learned State counsel informs that the material witnesses Kanwaljit Singh and Jatinderpal have already been examined and the trial is likely to be concluded in near future.
Counsel for the petitioner has further contended that on the basis of statements of Kanwaljit Singh and Jatinderpal, the petitioner can be granted the concession of bail.
I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner and I am of the opinion that it will not be appropriate at this stage to settle the controversy whether the deceased committed suicide by consuming poison or he was forcibly administered poisonous substance in the cold drink. Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has submitted that in case the trial court is directed to expeditiously dispose of the trial, the petitioner
Cr.Misc. M 30418 of 2012
2
would get a fair opportunity to prove his innocence before the trial court by producing his defence evidence.
In view of the above said circumstances, without expression of any opinion on merits, the petition is disposed of with a direction to the prosecution agency to conclude the prosecution evidence within a period of six months. In case the prosecution agency is not able to conclude the prosecution evidence within six months, after the next date of hearing fixed before the trial court i.e. 18.4.2013, it will be open to the petitioner to approach this court again for bail.
March 12 ,2013 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE
1 issue framed by the court
Whether bail should be granted to the petitioner who has been in custody for more than a year.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Satnam Singh @ Kala
State of Punjab
M.M.S. Bedi
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
