Kamlesh Kumari vs State Of Haryana on 28 September, 2017

222 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

Criminal Misc. No.M- 24362 of 2017 (OM)
Date of decision : September 28, 2017

Smt. Kamlesh Kumari …..Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana ….Respondent

CORAM:- HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL
Present: Mr. Suresh Kumar Kaushik, Advocate
for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjay K. Saini, AAG, Haryana.
***

LISA GILL, J.

The petitioner, who is the mother-in-law of the deceased, prays

for bail pending trial in FIR No. 586 dated 18.11.2016 under Sections 304B,

498A, 506, 201, 34 IPC registered at Police Station Pehowa, District

Kurukshetra.

It is submitted that no specific allegations have been levelled

against the present petitioner. Moreover, the evidence on record reveals that

death has been caused due to burns by electrocution. There is nothing on

record to show that the deceased was set on fire by pouring any incendiary

material upon her. It is stated that the deceased in her statement recorded by

the Magistrate on 15.11.2016, specifically stated that burn injuries were

received due to electric shock in an accident. Moreover, the observation of

the Magistrate that smell of kerosene was detected by her is negated by the

FSL report wherein it is specifically mentioned that kerosene, petrol, diesel

and their residues could not be detected on the relevant exhibits. Moreover,

the complainant is not coming forward to depose despite being summoned

1 of 2
30-09-2017 09:38:07 :::
Criminal Misc. No.M- 24362 of 2017 (OM) -2-

before the learned trial Court for 24.05.2017, 21.07.2017, 09.08.2017. It is,

thus, prayed that this petition be allowed.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties.

FSL report as well as the statement of the deceased recorded by

the Magistrate (Annexure P-3) is not in dispute. It is verified that the

complainant has not come forward for recording of her statement on the

various occasions as mentioned above. The petitioner is not involved in any

other criminal case. Trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is

likely to abscond or that she is likely to dissuade the witnesses from

deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.

No useful purpose shall be served by keeping the petitioner

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

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 her 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 28, 2017 Judge
rts

Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No

2 of 2
30-09-2017 09:38:08 :::

Leave a Comment

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