Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. 1. Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2009 Date of Decision: 28.8.2009 Soni alias Kirpal Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent AND 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-21997 of 2009 Jita Singh alias Harpreet Singh alias Landi …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Kamaldip Singh Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner (In Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2009). Mr. N.S. Dandiwal, Advocate for the petitioner (In Criminal Misc. No. M-21997 of 2009). None for the respondent. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) By this common order, Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2009 titled as “Soni alias Kirpal Singh v. State of Punjab” and Criminal Misc. No. M-21997 of 2009 titled as “Jita Singh alias Harpreet Singh alias Landi” will be decided. In Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2009, notice of motion was issued on 7.8.2009 to the Advocate General, Punjab. But nobody is Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2009 2 present on behalf of the State of Punjab. This Court on 31.3.2009, taking into consideration long incarceration of the petitioners, ordered in Criminal Misc. No. M-6039 of 2009 that the petitioner's case for grant of bail can be considered by the trial Court under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. This Court had held as under:- “it is stated in the FIR that on the day of occurrence, accused Neeta had thrown acid on both the legs of the complainant, due to which she received injuries on her knees and waist. I have seen the medicolegal report. She has suffered 7-8 percent acid burns. It is stated that her testimony in rape case has been recorded against Soni accused. Petitioner is stated to be in custody since 16th October, 2008. Trial for offence under Section 326 IPC is a case of magisterial trial. Petitioner cannot be allowed to languish behind the bars for the whole period of trial. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight that acid was thrown on a lady who had to depose in a rape case against the accused. To meet such exigencies and circumstances, legislature has enacted Section 437 (6) of Cr.P.C. Petitioner shall be entitled to the concession of bail under Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. in case such an application is filed before the trial Court. Taking into consideration, mandate of law under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. trial Court shall decide Criminal Misc. No. M-21482 of 2009 3 the bail application of the petitioner. With these observations, present petition is disposed off”. To comply with the above said order, the petitioner applied for bail under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. The trial Court noticed that accused are in custody since 18.10.2008 and further stated that the case was fixed for 25.5.2009 for prosecution evidence. Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 15.6.2009. The Court also noticed that 60 days will elapse from the recording of prosecution evidence on 21.7.2009. The Court held that since the petitioners had thrown acid on the complainant and the matter being serious, petitiones are not entitled to bail. Section 437 (6) Cr.P.C. has been enacted not to deprive the accused of their liberty. The Court came to conclusion that the offence is serious in nature. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the Court to give short date and conclude the trial within two months. The mandate of law laid under Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. cannot be lightly brushed aside. Hence, the trial Court may either conclude the trial within two months or take into consideration grant of bail to the petitioners so that the petitioners are not deprived of their personal liberty, because the trial Court has not understood the spirit of provisions of Section 437(6) Cr.P.C. With the observations made above, both the petitions are disposed off. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge August 28, 2009 “DK”