CRM No.M-31254 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-23.11.2010 Km.Harpreet Kaur alias Nanho daughter of Gurmej ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.J.B.S.Gill, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, A.A.G., Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Petitioner Kumari Harpreet Kaur alias Nanho, un-married daughter of Gurmej, has applied for grant of regular bail in a case registered against her alongwith her other main co-accused, namely, Sandip Kumar, vide FIR No.120 dated 1.8.2010 for commission of the offences punishable under sections 302 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Garhshankar, Distt.Hoshiarpur, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that marriage of Maya alias Annu, daughter of the complainant, was solemnized with main accused Sandip Kumar, six years prior to the present occurrence. He took her to village Rampur Ganura to visit the religious place, but instead of going there, Sandip Kumar accused took her to the hills of Sekhowal, where she was murdered by him (Sandip Kumar). On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Gurmej, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner indicated here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to CRM No.M-31254 of 2010 2 my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. What is not disputed here is that no role whatsoever was assigned to the petitioner in the FIR, in regard to the commission of murder of Maya. Subsequently, she was stated to have some telephonic conversation with main accused Sandip Kumar in this relevant connection. No other evidence is available with the prosecution against her. Whether the mere telephonic conversation of the petitioner, with main accused Sandip Kumar, is sufficient to prove her culpability, will be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. Petitioner is unmarried girl. She was arrested on 4.8.2010 and since then she is in judicial custody. No useful purpose would be served to further detain her in jail. As even charges have not yet been framed against the accused, therefore, conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the 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 ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of Area Magistrate, Hoshiarpur. 8. Needless to state that nothing recorded, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 23.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge