CRM No.M-29407 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-28.10.2010 Kusham Lata wife of Sanjeev Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, A.A.G.Haryana. Mr.Neeraj Bhutani, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC, petitioner Kusham Lata wife of Sanjeev Kumar, has instituted the instant petition for regular bail in a case registered against her alongwith her co-accused, namely, Chander Bhan, by virtue of FIR No.80 dated 5.6.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 302 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Bilaspur, Distt.Yamuna Nagar. 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 regard. 4. What is not disputed here is that there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution revolves and is based only on the circumstantial evidence in the shape of extra judicial confession of accused Chander Bhan before Sher Singh, relative of the deceased. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence of the prosecution is complete, CRM No.M-29407 of 2010 2 would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the case. The petitioner was arrested on 19.6.2010 and since then she is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served in further detaining her in jail. As even not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution, 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 the trial Court. 7. The present petition is disposed of accordingly. 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. 28.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge