Jitender Alias Jeetu vs State Of Haryana on 25 September, 2017

218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No. M- 9006 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 25, 2017

Jitender alias Jeetu …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present: Mr. Munish Behl, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay K. Saini, AAG, Haryana.

***
LISA GILL, J.

The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in FIR No. 445 dated

17.07.2016 under Sections 498A, 406, 304B IPC registered at Police Station

Sarai Khawaja, District Faridabad.

It is submitted that the petitioner has been falsely implicated for

the unfortunate demise of his wife. No harassment or ill-treatment was ever

meted out to the deceased at the hands of the petitioner. This fact has been

admitted by the complainant (PW1) in the cross examination conducted on

14.02.2017. The relevant part thereof reads as under:-

” No demand of dowry was made by accused or in laws of
my daughter before marriage and at the time of marriage. I
have six children. Their names are Meenakshi, Mamta, Azad,
Kajal, Kanchan and Akash. My husband is labourer and some
times drives the vehicle, subject to availability. I am doing the
job of security guard from the last seven years but I have not
brought the record.”

It is further submitted that the alleged incident took place

on 05.06.2016. The father of the deceased (husband of the complainant)

1 of 3
27-09-2017 07:28:31 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 9006 of 2017 (OM) -2-

suffered a statement on 06.06.2016 itself (Annexure P-2) that none is

responsible for the death of his daughter, who had committed suicide by

hanging herself in a fit of anger. The complainant i.e. the mother of the

deceased had thereafter submitted a complaint on 11.07.2016 raising

allegations of demand of dowry and ill-treatment of the deceased by the

petitioner. It is submitted that the complainant has already been examined

before the learned trial Court. All the material witnesses including the sister

as well as parental Aunt (Bua) of the deceased have also testified before the

learned trial Court. The petitioner is in custody since 08.10.2016. It is, thus,

prayed that this petition be allowed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

Certified copy of the statement of the complainant recorded on

14.02.2017 is taken on record subject to just exceptions.

Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Pardeep

Singh, verifies that the complainant as well as the sister and parental Aunt

of the deceased have since testified before the learned trial Court. Learned

counsel for the State in unable to deny the statement of the complainant as

referred to above. The petitioner is not reported to be involved in any other

criminal case.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State 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. Trial in this case is not

likely to conclude in the near future.

No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner

incarcerated any longer. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances noted

2 of 3
27-09-2017 07:28:32 :::
Criminal Misc. No. M- 9006 of 2017 (OM) -3-

above but without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, it is

considered just and expedient to allow this petition.

Consequently, the petitioner be released on bail pending trial

subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety to the satisfaction of

the learned trial Court.

It is reiterated that none of the observations made herein above

are a reflection on the merits of the case and shall have no bearing on the

trial.

(Lisa Gill)
September 25, 2017 Judge
rts
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No

Whether reportable : Yes/No

3 of 3
27-09-2017 07:28:32 :::

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *