IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.287 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 23, 2010 JASBIR SINGH ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. JBS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Rajni Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for bail in case FIR No.101 dated 5.10.2008 under Section 304-B, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Dasuya, District Hoshiarpur. It has been contended that the petitioner has been in custody since 5.1.2008. After recording the statement of PW-Iqbal Singh, an application under Section 319, Code of Criminal Procedure, was filed on behalf of the prosecution. The application was dismissed. A revision has been carried to the High Court. Stay of proceedings has not been ordered by the High Court. The witnesses have been summoned, however, are not ready to be cross-examined. It has been stated that the trial is being Criminal Misc. No.287 -M of 2010 2 delayed for no legal cause so as to keep the petitioner in custody. Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that it is a serious offence. So far as the revision petition filed in the High Court and delay in trial is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-State has not been able to state anything. I have considered the contentions. Certified copies of orders dated, 3.11.2009, 25.11.2009 and 8.12.2009 have been produced in court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and are taken on record. A perusal of order dated 8.12.2009 shows that PWs Iqbal Singh and Harjinder Kaur were present in court. A statement was given on their behalf that record of the trial court has been summoned by the High Court in the revision petition proceedings. Subsequently, it transpired that no such order had been passed by this Court. Be that as it may, the witnesses refused to be cross-examined so as to await the decision in the revision petition. Taking delay into account, the trial court ordered that the prosecution witnesses shall make themselves available for cross-examination, irrespective of the fact whether the revision petition was decided by that date or not. Despite such facts, although the witnesses were present on 25.11.2009, however, they did not allow themselves to be cross-examined. I have also considered the fact that there is a suicide note by Chandandeep Kaur, which says “I am myself responsible for my death. No one be harassed”. Although the note has not been proved on record, Criminal Misc. No.287 -M of 2010 3 however, the same has been filed in evidence of the fact that culpability of the petitioner is not pointed out. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances that the petitioner has been in custody since 5.10.2008; the investigation has already been concluded; the witnesses are related to the deceased; the prosecution is delaying the proceedings without any legal reason and the conclusion of trial is likely to take time, this petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. February 23, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?