CRM No.M-29944 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-7.12.2010 Anokh Singh son of Dial Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.D.S.Pheruman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Anokh Singh son of Dial Singh, father-in-law of deceased Palwinder Kaur, has applied for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Sukhwinder Singh (husband), Surinder Kaur (mother-in-law) and Major Singh (brother-in-law) of the deceased, by virtue of FIR No.150 dated 30.10.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 302, 307, 304-B and 498-A read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that deceased earlier made a dying declaration on the date of occurrence, wherein she did not name the petitioner, responsible in any manner for the commission of the crime in question. All the allegations of maltreatment, giving beating and pouring kerosene are alleged against main accused Sukhwinder Singh (husband) and Surinder Kaur (mother-in- CRM No.M-29944 of 2010 2 law) of the deceased. No doubt, in the supplementary statement, she has also named the petitioner (father-in-law) and other accused Major Singh (brother-in- law) as culprits, but what will be the effect of improvement made in the supplementary statement of the deceased, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. 5. Be that as it may, the fact remains is that the deceased did not name the petitioner in her initial statement. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 9.1.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. The conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the first statement of the deceased and totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in- above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the instant case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, the petition for regular bail is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 8. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. 7.12.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge