Crl. Misc. No.M-3976 of 2011 (O&M) Sukhjinder Singh @ Ripy Vs. State of Punjab Present : Mr. H.S. Gill, Sr. Advocate with Mr. K.B.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Grewal, D.A.G., Punjab. Mr. R.K. Chug, Advocate for Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Amicus Curiae. Mr. S.P.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. ******* AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case F.I.R. No.122 dated 30.04.2010 registered under Sections 302, 364, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot. On 08.07.2011 the following order was passed:- “In Crl. Misc. No.14272 of 2011, the order of the learned CJM, Faridkot dated 9.10.2010 was reproduced, as per which the prosecution was given permission to get examined the alleged suicide notes and the diary writing from their experts according to rules by taking photographs etc. Despite the passage of almost nine months, no action has been taken by the prosecution in this regard. Counsel for the State of Punjab prays for a month time to get the documents examined from a government handwriting expert and to apprise this Court about his findings thereon. Crl. Misc. No.M-3976 of 2011 (O&M) -2- In my opinion, even though the period of one month would be too much for a person who is incarcerated, yet in view of convoluted history of this case, this Court has no option but to reluctantly grant this time. Let the prosecution now get the said documents examined from the government handwriting expert and present the report before the next date of hearing. Adjourned to 17.08.2011.” Thereafter on 17.08.2011 the matter was adjourned for today. Today learned Deputy Advocate General on instructions from ASI Kuldeep Singh has stated that even till date the handwriting could not be compared. It is not disputed that the petitioner has now been in custody for the last 1 year and 2 months. I put it to learned counsel for the complainant whether an accused could be indefinitely incarcerated during the trial, learned Counsel for the complainant has very fairly stated that this would too extreme a proposition but prays that in case the petitioner is released then he should be granted liberty to file application for cancellation of bail of the petitioner when report of the FSL comes. I find this to be a fair request. Resultantly, without going into the merit of the case, I deem it appropriate to release the petitioner on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate with the aforementioned liberty. Ordered accordingly. Petition stands disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) September 09, 2011 JUDGE ashish