Allowed

Aarti Devi v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Jul 2020CRM-M/288/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a bail petition under Section 437 CrPC, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana granted bail to a petitioner accused of abandoning a newborn under Sections 317, 318, and 304 IPC, citing nine months of custody and lack of prejudice to the trial.

What did the court decide?

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is released on bail upon furnishing surety bonds satisfactory to the trial court.

Aarti Devi Vs State of Punjab — Child Sexual Offences (POCSO) | Punjab & Haryana HC (2020)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Misc. No. M-288 of 2020

¶3

Date of Decision: 24.07.2020

Aarti Devi

... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab

... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

¶10

Present: Mr. Chandan Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

¶11

Mr. Dhruv Dyal, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent.

¶12

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

¶13

The petitioner prays for grant of regular bail pending trial in criminal case arising from FIR No. 248 dated 15.10.2019, registered under Sections 317, 318 & 304 IPC at Police Station Division No. 6, District Ludhiana.

¶14

In brief, the case of the prosecution has been noticed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in para 6 of his order dated 27.11.2019, which is extracted as under:-

¶15

“6. In the present case, FIR was got registered against the applicant/accused at the instance and on the statement of Amarjit Singh son of Mahabir Singh. It is in accusations that the complainant is running a karyana shop in the name and style of Lucky Karyana Store. He is rented out his house bearing no.14971, street no.11 situated at Prabhat Nagar,

¶16

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.07.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶17

Criminal Misc. No. M-288 of 2020 2

¶18

Dholewal, Ludhiana to the migrants. In the intervening night of 14/15-10-2019 at about 12:30 A.M, after finishing the account work of his shop, he was going towards his residential house and when he reached in front of his house situated at Prabhat Nagar, Dholewal, Ludhiana, he heard the cries of a child. He called his tenant from the said house and asked him with regard to crying of the child but the tenant did not know about it. The complainant alongwith tenant went in search of the crying child and when they reached near the gutter, they heard the cries of the child. They removed the cover of the gutter and saw that one newly born male child had been thrown by someone inside the gutter. The complainant inquired the matter of his own from the mohalla people but all in vain. Thereafter, he took the child to Civil Hospital, Ludhiana for treatment. Thus, the present FIR”.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is in custody since 29.10.2019. The police, after the completion of investigation, has submitted report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. before the Court, however, neither charges have been framed nor any evidence has been recorded in the case. He submits that the conclusion of trial is likely to take time.

¶20

On the other hand, learned State counsel, on the statement of ASI Sethi Kumar, has submitted that report from the Forensic Science Laboratory is still awaited.

¶21

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.07.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶22

Criminal Misc. No. M-288 of 2020 3

¶23

Keeping in view the facts of the case and without commenting on merits thereof, this Court is of the considered opinion that further incarceration of the petitioner, at this stage, would not be justified. The petitioner is in custody for approximately nine months; the conclusion of the trial is likely to take time and she is not stated to be involved in any other criminal case.

¶24

Hence, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate.

¶25

(Anil Kshetarpal) Judge July 24, 2020 “DK” Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

¶26

DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2020.07.24 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Aarti Devi v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Aarti Devi 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

Gurmel Singh Vs State of Haryana

Shakti Vs State of Haryana

Vishal Sharma @ Monu Vs State of Haryana

Tania and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harjinder Kaur and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajni and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others