Criminal Misc.-M No. 18983 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 18983 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.9.2011 Preeti alias Gurpreet Kaur alias Kulwinder Kaur .. Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. J. S. Dadwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who is an accused in FIR No. 149 dated 12.7.2009, registered under Sections 302, 182, 34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, Police Station, Division No. 7, Ludhiana. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was arrested on 27.7.2009 and is still in custody. The petitioner has been arrayed as an accused for the murder of her husband and his friend, namely, Naresh only on the basis of extra-judicial confession allegedly made by her before Joga Singh (brother of the petitioner), which is a weak evidence. He further submitted that neither Joga Singh nor Om Parkash are appearing in court as prosecution witnesses, as both of them are hardened criminals, who are involved in many cases in the State of Haryana. The husband of the petitioner was also a proclaimed offender and he was living in Ludhiana with changed identity. Considering the period of custody, the petitioner should be released on bail pending trial. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that four out of 16 prosecution witnesses have already been examined. There are three independent witnesses, namely, Om Parkash, Joga Singh and Criminal Misc.-M No. 18983 of 2010 [2] Roshan Lal. They have been issued summons but they are not appearing in court. The others are official witnesses. He further submitted that considering the allegations against the petitioner, where she was involved in the murder of her husband and his friend and tried to mis-direct the investigation, she is not entitled to bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, in my opinion, the ends of justice in the present case would be met if the court below is directed to conclude trial by the end of December, 2011. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 19.9.2011 mk