Crl. Misc. No. M-9284 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-9284 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 20, 2011 Sarabjit Kaur …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Jagmohan Ghumman, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG Punjab. Mr.Anurag Arora, Advocate for the complainant. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Original FIR was registered at the instance of petitioner alleging that her husband Harbans Singh left the house on his bicycle to irrigate his wheat crop but did not return. Subsequently his body was found lying near the tubewell of Niranjan Singh. During the course of investigation, the petitioner herself involved in the case on the basis of statement of one Ram Singh recorded on Crl. Misc. No. M-9284 of 2011 [2] December 19, 2009 to the effect that Gurpreet Singh co-accused had made an extra-judicial confession before him that he had illicit relations with the petitioner the wife of deceased Harbans Singh and that he alongwith Sarabjit Kaur had committed the murder of Harbans Singh by hitting his head with weigh lifting rod. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that co-accused of the petitioner who was aware of the affair of the petitioner has been granted the concession of regular bail. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been involved on the basis of weak evidence gathered during the course of investigation. It is claimed that she has been in custody w.e.f. December 19, 2009 and the trial is proceeding at slow pace. On the other hand, counsel for the complainant and State have opposed the petition submitting that there is overwhelming evidence available on the record indicative of the close proximity of the petitioner with Gurpreet Singh with whom the petitioner had allegedly illicit relations. Whether the statement of Ram Singh would be sufficient to warrant conviction of Gurpreet Singh who had allegedly made extra-judicial confession before the said PW, cannot be adjudicated at this stage. It has been informed that only two more witnesses remain to be examined. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the present case, without expression of any opinion on merits of this case, it is observed that the petitioner is a lady and has been in custody w.e.f. December 19, 2009. She has got two children to look after but the trial being at penultimate stage, it will not be appropriate to express any opinion Crl. Misc. No. M-9284 of 2011 [3] regarding the admissibility, relevancy or strength of the evidence of the prosecution as only two witnesses of the prosecution remain to be examined. Petition is disposed of with a direction that in case the trial is not concluded within a period of three months after the next date of hearing, the trial Court will grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. December 20, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE