Judgment:
CRM-M No.7743 of 2014(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M No.7743 of 2014(O&M).Date of Decision : 30.06.2014.
Jagdish ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA.
Present: Mr.S.S.Sahu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.
*** Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J.
(Oral) This order shall dispose of the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.seeking regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.697 dated 03.09.2012, under Sections 302, 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Hisar.
Learned counsel for the parties have been heard.
The deceased in the present case is Shakuntla i.e.wife of the present petitioner.
FIR was registered on the statement of Pawan Kumar i.e.brother of the deceased with the allegations that Shakuntla had been killed by the present petitioner as also by other co-accused, namely, Babal, Shamsher, Joginder, Vajir and Parveen by administering poison.
The motive attributed is that certain land was to come to the share of the deceased and just to grab such land, the petitioner along with co-accused Kanchan 2014.07.03 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CRM-M No.7743 of 2014(O&M) 2 wanted Shakuntla to be eliminated.
It has gone uncontroverted that as per post-mortem report, no injuries were found on the body of the deceased and the cause of death had been opined to be on account of consumption of organo phosphorous compound group of insecticide.
The petitioner has been in custody since 18.09.2012.
Co-accused as noticed here-in-above and against whom also, there were similar allegations of having administered poison to deceased Shakuntla, have already been granted the benefit of regular bail.
The trial is still at the initial stage in as much as out of 16 prosecution witnesses cited, only 8 have been examined till date.
The question as to whether offence under Section 302, 34 IPC is made out against the present petitioner would be a moot point to be taken up for consideration during the couRs.of trial.
It is not even the case made out on behalf of the State that the petitioner if, granted the benefit of regular bail, would be in a position to hamper the couRs.of trial.
In the totality of circumstances and keeping in view the length of incarceration already suffered by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail.
Petition is allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
Disposed of.
June 30, 2014.
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA) kanchan JUDGE Kanchan 2014.07.03 09:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh