Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ramandeep Singh Alais Rama vs State Of Punjab on 3 June, 2020
Author: Hari Pal Verma
Bench: Hari Pal Verma
211.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-11439-2020
Date of decision: 03.06.2020
RAMANDEEP SINGH @ RAMA ... Petitioner
versus
STATE OF PUNJAB .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARI PAL VERMA
----
Present: Mr. Gurmeet Singh Saini, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Dhruv Dayal, DAG, Punjab.
----
HARI PAL VERMA, J.(Oral)
The matter has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing due to outbreak of COVID-19.
Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, pending trial, in case FIR No.42 dated 27.06.2019 registered under Sections 306, 34 of IPC at Police Station Sadiq, District Faridkot.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2019. The deceased was married with the petitioner about 12 years ago and out of this wedlock, there are two children, aged about 7 years and 5 years. As against the total 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 3 witnesses have been examined and in this manner, trial will take sufficient long time.
1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2020 21:13:15 ::: CRM-M-11439-2020 -2- Learned State counsel, on instructions from Inspector Jaskaran Singh, does not dispute the custody and the fact that three witnesses have been examined.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
Considering the fact that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased was solemnized about 12 years ago and the petitioner is in custody since 01.07.2019, coupled with the fact that as against the total 14 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 3 witnesses have been examined and trial is not likely to be concluded in the near future, this Court deems it appropriate to admit the petitioner on bail.
Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is admitted on regular bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate.
It is made clear that the petitioner shall not extend any threat and shall not influence any prosecution witnesses in any manner directly or indirectly.
The observations made hereinabove shall not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case and the trial court shall decide the case on the basis of available material.
(HARI PAL VERMA)
JUDGE
03.06.2020
sanjeev
Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 03-06-2020 21:13:15 :::