Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bala Verma vs State Of Punjab on 12 December, 2022
CRM-M-9433-2022 -1-
218
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-9433-2022
Date of decision : 12.12.2022
Bala Verma
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr. Vaibhav Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ramdeep Partap Singh, Sr. DAG, Punjab.
****
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the
petitioner in FIR No.230 dated 08.11.2021 registered under Sections 304, 34 of
Indian Penal Code, 1860 at Police Station Jamalpur, Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the present case solely on the basis of suspicion.
It is further submitted that dead body of son of the complainant was found from
the house of one Prabhjeet Singh and not the present petitioner. It is contended
that the petitioner has no link with Prabhjeet Singh and the said Prabhjeet
Singh is not related to her. It is further contended that a perusal of the FIR
would show that apparently, the complainant had carried out investigation of
his own and had named the present petitioner. It is argued that neither there is
any eye-witness in the present case, nor there is any linking evidence to prove
1 of 3
any connection between the petitioner and the said Prabhjeet Singh and as per
the report of Chemical Examiner, it had been found that no poison had been
detected in the content which was sent for chemical examination. It is further
argued that the petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2021 and investigation is
complete and challan has been presented and there are 14 prosecution
witnesses, out of which, two prosecution witnesses have been examined as yet,
and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time. It is also submitted that
the other witnesses are official witnesses and the question of influencing them
would not arise.
On the other hand, learned State Counsel has opposed the present
petition for grant of regular bail to the petitioner and has submitted that the
petitioner is involved in three more cases.
Learned counsel for the petitioner in rebuttal to the said argument
has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in "Maulana Mohd.
Amir Rashadi vs. State of U.P. and another", reported as 2012 (2) SCC 382
to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are to be seen
and the bail application of the petitioner cannot be rejected solely on the
ground that the petitioner is involved in another case. The relevant portion of
the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"As observed by the High Court, merely on the basis
of criminal antecedents, the claim of the second respondent
cannot be rejected. In other words, it is the duty of the
Court to find out the role of the accused in the case in
which he has been charged and other circumstances such
as possibility of fleeing away from the jurisdiction of the
Court etc."
Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances more so,
2 of 3
the facts that in the present case, the petitioner is in custody since 08.11.2021
and investigation is complete and challan has been presented and out of 14
prosecution witnesses, only two prosecution witnesses have been examined as
yet, and thus, the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and also the fact that
the dead body of son of the complainant had been recovered from the house of
Prabhjeet Singh and as per affidavit dated 07.12.2022 filed by the Assistant
Commissioner of Police, Industrial Area-A, Ludhiana, there is no substantial
material to link the petitioner with the said Prabhjeet Singh and also in view of
the fact that as per the report of the Chemical Examiner, no poison had been
detected in the content which was sent for chemical examination and also in
view of the law laid down in Maulana Mohd. Amir Rashadi's case (Supra),
the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on
regular bail on her furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial
Court/Duty Magistrate, subject to her not being required in any other case.
However, it is made clear that in case, any act is done by the
petitioner to threaten the complainant or any of the witnesses, then it would be
open to the State to move an application for cancellation of bail granted to the
petitioner.
Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression of
opinion on the merits of the case and the trial would proceed independently of
the observations made in the present case which are only for the purpose of
adjudicating the present bail application.
12.12.2022 (VIKAS BAHL)
Pawan JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
3 of 3
