Allowed

Bhushan Gir and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Mar 2013CRM-M/33181/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court granted regular bail to petitioners charged with murder. The court noted the FIR was lodged two years after the incident, evidence was limited to an oral dying declaration, and investigation found allegations baseless while prosecution failed to produce the complainant.

What did the court decide?

Petitioners ordered to be released on bail during the pendency of the trial, subject to furnishing bail bonds.

Bhushan Gir and Anr. Vs State of Punjab — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CRM-M-33181-2012 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-M-33181-2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 1, 2013

¶5

Bhushan Gir and another

…Petitioners

Versus

State of Punjab

…Respondent

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI

¶11

Present: Mr. Preetinder S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

Mr. Piyush Bansal, DAG, Punjab, for the respondent.

¶13

Mr. Jagjit Singh, Advocate, for the complainant.

¶14

NARESH KUMAR SANGHI, J.

¶15

Prayer in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners, namely, Bhushan Gir and Hakam Gir, both sons of Teeri Gir, and residents of House No. B-IX-451/2, Nimbu Wali Gali, Santokhpura, Police Station, Division No. 3, Jalandhar, who have been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 201 and 302, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 152, dated 7.12.2010, registered at Police Station, Division No. 3, Jalandhar.

¶16

Learned counsel contends that the alleged occurrence had taken place on 20.11.2008, while the FIR was registered on 7.12.2010. He further submits that except the oral dying declaration, there is no other piece of evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged murder of Bittu. He further submits

¶17

CRM-M-33181-2012 (O&M) 2

¶18

that the petitioners are behind the bars from 26.7.2012. He further submits that numerous opportunities were afforded to the prosecution to lead its entire evidence, but still the complainant has failed to appear before the learned Court below, in spite of issuance of non-bailable warrants by the learned Trial Court for securing her presence. He further submits that the petitioners are neither required no involved in any other case.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State on instruction from ASI Kulbir Singh of Police Station, Division No. 3, Jalandhar, fairly concedes that except the oral dying declaration, there is no piece of evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged crime. He further concedes that the FIR was lodged after more than two years of the alleged occurrence. He also concedes that only three witnesses have appeared before the learned Trial Court. 4. Learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant bail to the petitioners.

¶20

Heard.

¶21

The FIR was lodged after delay of more than two years. Except the oral dying declaration before the mother of the deceased, there is no other piece of evidence connecting the petitioners with the alleged murder of Bittu. Learned counsel for the petitioners also brought to the notice of this Court that as many as four senior police officers of Jalandhar police had investigated the matter and all of them found the allegations levelled against the petitioners to be baseless. The petitioners are behind the bars from 26.7.2012. The prosecution has failed

¶22

CRM-M-33181-2012 (O&M) 3

¶23

to lead its entire evidence, in spite of issuance of non-bailable warrants to secure the presence of the complainant. 7. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances of the case, the present petition is allowed. The petitioners, namely, Bhushan Gir and Hakam Gir, both sons of Teeri Gir, and residents of House No. B-IX-451/2, Nimbu Wali Gali, Santokhpura, Police Station, Division No. 3, Jalandhar, are ordered to be released on bail in the present case during the pendency of the trial, subject to their furnishing bail bonds, to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Jalandhar.

¶24

(NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE

¶25

March 1, 2013 Pkapoor

Bhushan Gir and Anr. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhushan Gir and Anr. 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

Lakhvir Singh Vs State of Punjab

Surinder Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Harmit Kaur Vs State of Punjab

Mohd. Salim & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Anupam Vs State of Haryana

Balkar Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab