CRM-M-No-38219 of 2010 ( O & M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc-M-No.38219 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: 2nd November,2011 Saroj ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL. Present: Mr. Sanjay Vashisth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. Advocate General. Haryana. RAJESH BINDAL, J. The prayer in the present petition is for grant of bail to the petitioner who is unmarried Nanad of the deceased and was summoned under section 319 Cr.P.C. She is in custody since December 15, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that sister of the petitioner was also summoned to face the trial along with petitioner and was released on bail by this Court in June 2, 2010. All CRM-M-No-38219 of 2010 ( O & M) 2 the prosecution-witnesses turned hostile and there is no evidence against the petitioner. Still despite a direction of this Court on March 28, 2011, the prosecution has not concluded its evidence. Considering the period of custody of petitioner and fact that till today there is nothing brought on record by the prosecution which can lead to conviction of the petitioner, she deserves concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State submitted that entire evidence of the prosecution has been led except the statement of the Magistrate who recorded statement of the deceased under Section 164 Cr.P.C, that statement is missing from the file and a communication has been written to District & Sessions Judge, Rohtak, for tracing out the same and it is only thereafter that the statement of the Magistrate will be recorded. However he contends that none of the prosecution-witnesses has supported the version in the FIR and further the sister of the petitioner was also summoned along with the petitioner has already been released on bail by this Court. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that in the evidence produced in the Court till CRM-M-No-38219 of 2010 ( O & M) 3 date none of the witnesses has supported the prosecution version and further the evidence of the Magistrate has not been recorded as the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C recorded by him is not available on the file, I am of the opinion that the petitioner deserves concession of bail during the pendency of the trial. Accordingly, she is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Bhiwani. The petition stands disposed of. 2nd November, 2011 (RAJESH BINDAL) aarti JUDGE