In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.6186 of 2009 (O&M) ..... Date of decision:16.3.2009 Naresh Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Notice of motion to Advocate General, Haryana. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice. This petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (`Cr.P.C.' - for short) has been filed for setting aside the order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure-P.2) whereby the application for leading evidence to show that the petitioner is of unsound mind has been dismissed as also the order dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure-P.3) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karnal whereby the bail granted to the petitioner has been cancelled and his bail bond forfeited to the State. The petitioner has filed this petition through his father. It has been alleged that the petitioner is of unsound mind and getting treatment from the Psychiatry Department of Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. The petitioner, it is alleged, has been falsely implicated in FIR No.48 dated 15.4.2008 registered at Police Station, Madhuban, District Karnal for the Cr. Misc.-M No.6186/2009 (O&M) [2] offences under Sections 323, 506, 307, 34, 406 and 498-A IPC on the complaint lodged by his wife. It has been alleged that the petitioner is not of sound mind and he has been getting regular treatment from the Psychiatry Department of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. The petitioner filed an application under Section 329 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. However, he has not been able to prove the unsoundness of his mind. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it may be noticed that the learned Additional Sessions Judge had granted as many as three effective opportunities to the petitioner to lead evidence regarding the unsoundness of his mind. However, despite that the petitioner failed to lead any evidence to show regarding his being of unsound mind. In terms of order dated 11.10.2008 (Annexure-P.1) the petitioner was directed to produce evidence regarding unsoundness of his mind. However, he failed to do so. Accordingly, the application of the petitioner for producing evidence to show that he is of unsound mind has been dismissed vide order dated 5.11.2008 (Annexure-P.2) and his bail bond cancelled and forfeited to the State vide order dated 2.2.2009 (Annexure-P.3). When the petition was initially filed in this Court, no document or material was placed on record to show the condition regarding the petitioner being of unsound mind. On 4.3.2009, learned counsel for the petitioner took time to place necessary documents on record. Today, by way of Criminal Misc. No.12710-11 of 2009 documents (Annexures-P.4 to P.7) have been attached. The same are also only prescription slips and on one of them i.e. Annexure-P.4 the petitioner has been referred to the Cr. Misc.-M No.6186/2009 (O&M) [3] Department of Psychiatry, Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences, Rohtak. At the Post Graduate Institute of Medial Sciences, Rohtak certain medicines have been prescribed which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner are meant for psychiatric treatment. In my view, the same do not, in any manner, show the unsound mind of the petitioner. In any case, learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed that he may be granted only one opportunity to lead evidence before the learned trial Court to prove the unsoundness of mind of the petitioner. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no serious prejudice would be caused in case one opportunity is granted to the petitioner to produce evidence and material to show that the petitioner is of unsound mind. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner shall be afforded one effective opportunity by the learned trial Court to lead evidence regarding unsoundness of mind of the petitioner which shall be subject to payment of Rs.2,000/- as costs. March 16, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*