SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation

Judgments of Supreme Court of India and High Courts

Trilok vs State Of Haryana on 23 March, 2017

CRM No.M-44611 of 2016                                                       [1]




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANAAT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                    Criminal Misc. No.M- 44611 of 2016(OM)
                                               Date of Decision: March 23 , 2017.

Trilok                     ...... PETITIONER (s)

             Versus

State of Haryana           ...... RESPONDENT (s)


CORAM:- HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

Present:     Mr. Mohan Singh Rana, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Anmol Malik, AAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Munfaid Khan, Advocate
             for the complainant.
                                  *****
             1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see
                the judgment?
             2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
             3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?
                                  *****

LISA GILL, J.

The petitioner prays for bail pending trial in FIR No.95 dated

29.06.2016 under Sections 304B/34/406/498A IPC registered at Police Station

Bahin, District Palwal.

It is contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in

this case. The petitioner and his wife were living together happily without any

acrimony. It is further contended that the deceased was unwell prior to her

death. The complainant in this case has since been examined. The allegation

1 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-03-2017 13:57:34 :::
CRM No.M-44611 of 2016 [2]

in the FIR that she was subjected to physical abuse is not borne out from the

medical evidence on record. As per the medical evidence, the exact cause of

death could not be ascertained. As per report dated 17.10.2016 of Dr. Shiv

Shankar, General Hospital Palwal, it is opined as under:-

“Answer to the questions asked by you in order are –

1. There is no evidence to suggest any poisoning (negative FSL
report for common poisons).

2. On post-mortem examination, there were no finding which
suggest any disease.

3. After histopathological report, there were no evidence/finding
of heart attack.

4. As FSL report for common poisoning and histopathological
report of heart are negative and there are no injury mark over
body surface. Hence I am of the opinion that exact cause of
death cannot be ascertained. However circumstantial evidence
may be given due consideration (Negative Autopsy).”

It is thus prayed that the petitioner be granted the concession of

bail pending trial.

Learned counsel for the State as well as the complainant have

opposed this petition while submitting that there are allegations of dowry being

demanded by the accused as well as physical abuse of the deceased. It is

however not denied that the cause of death in this case could not be ascertained

and neither were any injuries found on the person of the deceased.

This matter was adjourned to ensure that the complainant in this

case is examined before the learned trial court. It is informed by learned

counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Abid Hussain, that the

2 of 3
::: Downloaded on – 26-03-2017 13:57:35 :::
CRM No.M-44611 of 2016 [3]

complainant has since testified before the learned trial court. Five out of a total

of thirteen prosecution witnesses have been examined. Trial in this case is not

likely to conclude in the near future. Further incarceration of the petitioner in

the facts and circumstances of the case is not called for.

There are no allegations on behalf of the State that the 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.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances but without

commenting upon or expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, this

petition filed by Trilok is allowed. The petitioner shall be released on bail

pending trial subject to his furnishing requisite bail bonds and surety bonds to

the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court.

It is clarified that none of the observations made hereinabove shall

be construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case. The same are solely

confined for the purpose of decision of the present petition.



                                                        ( LISA GILL )
March 23 , 2017.                                            JUDGE
'om'


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




                                      3 of 3
                  ::: Downloaded on - 26-03-2017 13:57:35 :::
 

Leave a Reply

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

Copyright © 2021 SC and HC Judgments Online at MyNation
×

Free Legal Help, Just WhatsApp Away

MyNation HELP line

We are Not Lawyers, but No Lawyer will give you Advice like We do

Please read Group Rules – CLICK HERE, If You agree then Please Register CLICK HERE and after registration  JOIN WELCOME GROUP HERE

We handle Women Centric biased laws like False Sectioin 498A IPC, Domestic Violence(DV ACT), Divorce, Maintenance, Alimony, Child Custody, HMA 24, 125 CrPc, 307, 312, 313, 323, 354, 376, 377, 406, 420, 497, 506, 509; TEP, RTI and many more…

MyNation FoundationMyNation FoundationMyNation Foundation