CRM No.M-28781 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Smt.Choto wife of Hem Chander ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G. Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC, petitioner Smt.Choto wife of Hem Chander, has instituted the instant petition for regular bail in a case registered against her alongwith her co-accused, namely, Vikrant, Navin, Kulbir, Golu, Vinod, Mukesh, Ramu, Dinesh and Hem Chander, by virtue of FIR No.218 dated 20.5.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 307, 332, 353 and 120-B read with section 149 IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Sadar, Bahadurgarh, Distt.Jhajjar. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this respect. 4. What is not disputed here is that originally, the present case was registered on the statement of complainant Ranbir Singh against the aforementioned accused. During the course of investigation, all the accused except CRM No.M-28781 of 2010 2 Vikrant and Hem Chander alias Himal were found to be innocent and police did not challan them. Subsequently, the present petitioner was involved on the statement of Rinku PW, wherein he has stated that she alongwith her other co- accused namely Vikrant and Hem Chander hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Jasbir alias Bulla (deceased). No overt act or specific part is attributed to the petitioner. There is no direct evidence/eye witness of the occurrence. As to whether the provisions of section 120-B IPC are attracted to the facts of the present case, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the case. The petitioner was arrested on 27.5.2010 and since then she is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to be further detained her in jail. As even the case has not yet been committed to the Court of Session, therefore, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. Otherwise also, the petitioner, being a lady, is entitled to bail. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of evidence and totality of the other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on her furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate or in his absence, the duty Magistrate, Jhajjar. 7. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge