Allowed

Raj Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2017CRM-M/17725/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana allowed a bail petition filed by the father-in-law of the deceased in a Section 306 IPC case. The jurisdiction to grant bail was exercised by directing the petitioner to furnish bonds to the trial court.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner released on bail pending trial subject to furnishing requisite bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

Raj Singh Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2017)

¶1

Crl. Misc. No. M-17725 of 2017 (O&M) [ 1 ]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Crl. Misc. No. M-17725 of 2017 (O&M) Date of Decision : September 26,2017

¶4

Raj Singh .........................................................Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Haryana............................................. Respondent

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶8

Present: Mr. Amit Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr. Sanjay K. Saini, AAG, Haryana.

¶10

LISA GILL, J. (Oral)

¶11

CRM-31049-2017

¶12

Application is allowed. Annexures P-6 and P-7 are taken on record subject to just exceptions.

¶13

CRM-M-17725-2017

¶14

The petitioner, who is the father-in-law of the deceased, seeks the concession of bail pending trial in FIR No. 121 dated 03.06.2016 under Sections 201, 34, 306 IPC registered at Police Station Sadar, District Yamunanagar (Haryana).

¶15

It is submitted that the deceased and her husband were living

¶16

Rupinder Kaur 2017.09.28 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Crl. Misc. No. M-17725 of 2017 (O&M) [ 2 ]

¶18

separately from the petitioner. Marriage of the deceased and the petitioner's son took place in the year 2007. Two children were born out of this wedlock. There was never any complaint of ill-treatment or harassment of the deceased till the unfortunate incident on 02.06.2016. Moreover, PW2 Satish Kumar specifically stated that he informed the complainant about the death of his daughter. The complainant, his wife and other relatives were present at the time of cremation. The petitioner it is submitted has been in custody since September 2016. The complainant and the other material witness Satish Kumar have since been examined before the learned trial Court. Therefore, the present petition be allowed.

¶19

Learned counsel for the State while opposing this petition submits that the complainant has specifically stated that his daughter was cremated surreptitiously without any intimation to him. However, it is not denied that the petitioner has been in custody since September 2016 and the complainant as well as PW2 Satish Kumar have testified before the learned trial Court. It is further verified, on instructions from ASI Jasbir Singh, Police Station Sadar, District Yamunanagar, that the petitioner was living separately from the deceased and his son though in the same locality. The petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other criminal case. There are no allegations that petitioner is likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail. No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner incarcerated any longer.

¶20

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted above but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is considered just and expedient to allow this petition. Consequently, the petitioner-Raj Singh

¶21

Rupinder Kaur 2017.09.28 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

[ 3 ]

¶23

Crl. Misc. No. M-17725 of 2017 (O&M)

¶24

be released on bail pending trial subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court.

¶25

None of the observations made here-in-above shall be construed to be a reflection on merits of the case and shall have no bearing on trial.

¶26

( LISA GILL ) 26.09.2017 JUDGE rupi

¶27

Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No

¶28

Whether Reportable: Yes / No

¶29

Rupinder Kaur 2017.09.28 13:48 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Raj Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Singh 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mantavya Dhamija Vs State of U T & Anr.

Faisal Rehman @ Jagdish Singh Vs Amandeep Kaur and Anr.

Manzoor Khan @ Manzoor Mohd & Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Amardeep Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Another

Umesh Phaugat and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Harpreet Singh and Others Vs State of Punjab and Another