IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc M- 1289 of 2009 Date of decision: 22.4.2009. Bhupinder Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana …Respondent Present: Mr Ramneek Vasudeva, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr KC Gupta, AAG Haryana. S.S.SARON, J. Mr Gupta, on instructions from ASI Madan Lal of PS Civil Lines, Hisar has stated that 15 witnesses have been cited by the prosecution, 4 have been examined, 2 have been dropped and 9 remain to be examined. It is stated that ASI Ved Parkash who appeared on the last date of hearing did not give the correct position. Heard counsel for the parties. The FIR has been recorded on the statement of Usha Thakral who has stated that she along with her husband, mother-in-law and grand- daughter resides at Hisar. The son of the complainant works at Gurgaon. About 6 months earlier to the registration of the FIR, the complainant and her husband were returning from Ludhiana to Hisar by train. On their way, they met a man and a woman who took their address and telephone number. Thereafter, they rang them up many times. About 10 days earlier to the FIR, the aforesaid man and the woman with a male child aged 2 years came to the Cr Misc M-1289 of 2009 2 house of the complainant and asked them to accompany them to Mata Vaishno Devi which they declined. Then a day earlier to the registration of the FIR at about 6 p.m. in the evening, they both along with the child came in a silver coloured Indica Car which was without number. They parked the Car inside the house of the complainant and stated that the Chimta (fork) of the car had broken and it was to be repaired. They also stated that they were coming from Vaishno Devi. The complainant ate the Parshad that was offered. On asking, the man gave his name as Rajinder and the lady as Sonu. Rajinder told his wife that he was observing fast and that she should prepare meals with the complainant. The said person administered poison to the complainant and also stole the gold ornaments from the house of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2007. Besides, the petitioner has not been specifically named as an accused in the FIR and the FIR is against one Rajinder and Sonu. It is further submitted that Manjit Kaur the wife of the petitioner has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 19.5.2008 (P3) passed in Criminal Misc M-3857 of 2007 by this Court. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is also liable to be released on bail. In response, learned counsel for the State submits that keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner that is administering poison and stealing the house hold articles and gold ornaments, the petitioner is not entitled to bail. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties. Cr Misc M-1289 of 2009 3 The petitioner is in custody since 27.11.2007. The role attributed to the petitioner is to be considered and gone into after evidence has been led. The trial in the case is likely to take time as only 4 witnesses out of 12 cited by the prosecution have been examined. Two witnesses have been dropped. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Manjit Kaur has been granted the concession of bail vide order Annexure P3. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is also granted the concession of bail. Accordingly, the criminal misc petition is allowed and the petitioner, on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Magistrate, shall be admitted to bail. 22.4.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge