Criminal Misc. No.M-10095 of 2009 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-10095 of 2009 Date of decision : 28.10.2009 Surjit Kaur .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondents **** CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr. A.D.Jattana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. B.B.S.Teji, AAG., Punjab. Mr. R.K.Girdhar, Advocate S. D. ANAND, J. This petition is disposed of with a direction that the learned Trial Court must conclude the trial within six months from the next date of hearing, particularly because relevant Sessions case pertains to year 2007 and is obviously a custody case. If the trial is not completed within stipulated time, the petitioner shall be released on bail to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. In the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent-complainant placed on record certified copies of interim orders dated 2.9.2009, 7.10.2009 and 21.10.2009. A perusal of those orders indicates that the case had to be adjourned on those dates on account of non-production of petitioner Surjit Kaur by the jail authorities. Learned counsel for the parties explain that the petitioner-accused has to be compulsively brought on every date of hearing from Bhatinda as there is no Criminal Misc. No.M-10095 of 2009 -2- **** women cell in the Jail at Mukatsar. Infact, a plea had been made on behalf of the petitioner was that no progress at all came to be made in the case even after an earlier plea filed by the petitioner for her release on bail came to be declined. The plea raised was that there is no reason why the petitioner should suffer on account of inability on the part of the prosecution for examining relevant witnesses at the trial. Learned counsel for the complainant produced three copies of the interim orders to disprove the above allegations. It was pointed out in the context that two witnesses were very much present on 7.10.2009 but could not be examined on account of non-production of petitioner Surjit Kaur by the jail authorities. The same position is evident from a perusal of interim order dated 21.10.2009. The learned Trial Judge did not take any action in the context of non-production of Surjit Kaur. He called for the explanation of the jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Bhatinda on 21.10.2009. The Presiding Officer concerned be called upon to intimate the action taken in the context which, on receipt, shall be put up by the Registry. Disposed of accordingly. October 28, 2008 (S. D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter: Yes/No