Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
CRM-M-12707-2021 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
Date of Decision: 25.03.2021
Gopal Singh ……………………………………Petitioner
State of Punjab…………………………………. Respondent
CORAM : HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
(through video conferencing)
Present: Mr. Jashandeep Singh Sandhu, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Randhir Singh Thind, DAG, Punjab.
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (Oral)
This is second petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of
regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 146 dated 02.12.2019 under
Bathinda, District Bathinda.
At the outset learned counsel for the petitioner requests for
adding section 304-B IPC in the prayer clause of the petition as the same
was added later on.
On oral request of the petitioner, Section 304-B IPC is added in
the head note and prayer clause of the petition. Registry is directed to make
1 of 3
26-03-2021 21:36:20 :::
CRM-M-12707-2021 [ 2 ]
Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that a perusal of
the contents of the FIR clearly reveal that the petitioner, who is the husband
of the deceased, was not at the place of occurrence when the deceased Rajni
@ Lakshmi was found lying dead on the bed inside their house. It has been
submitted that in fact it was the co-accused Sham Singh and Ram Singh,
brothers of the petitioner, who came out of the house of the petitioner
holding electricity wires along with the daughter of the deceased when the
complainant knocked at the door on hearing some commotion. The learned
counsel submits that the contents of the FIR clearly reveal that the petitioner
who is serving in the Army was not even at the place of occurrence at the
time of the alleged incident as he was on duty at Bathinda Cantt. and hence
could not be even remotely linked to the alleged crime. Learned counsel
further submits that the petitioner is behind bars since 04.12.2019 and the
trial is not likely to conclude in the near future.
Per contra the learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI
Karanjit Singh, has not been able to controvert the submissions made by the
counsel for the petitioner qua the petitioner not being present at the place of
occurrence nor any allegation having been levelled against him by the
In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel and
keeping in view that the petitioner has been in custody since 04.12.2019 and
no useful purpose would be served by keeping him behind bars as the trial is
unlikely to conclude in the near future, I deem it a fit case to grant the
concession of regular bail. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is
admitted to bail to the satisfaction of trial Court/Duty Magistrate. However,
2 of 3
26-03-2021 21:36:21 :::
CRM-M-12707-2021 [ 3 ]
it is made clear that any observation made herein shall not be construed as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
( MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
Note: Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable: Yes / No
3 of 3
26-03-2021 21:36:21 :::