CRM No. M-30668 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-30668 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 04.11.2009 Sukhvir Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. J.S. Khiva, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC at Police Station Budhlada, District Mansa, vide FIR No.114 dated 3rd August, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no specific role has been attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. The complainant has already deposed before the trial court while appearing as PW1. According to the counsel, there are major discrepancies in the deposition of PW1. Thus, the petitioner deserves the concession of bail in view of testimony of PW1. This apart, the petitioner is stated to be in custody for last one year and thus, learned counsel has prayed for bail on this ground as well. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. According to the prosecution, Sukhvir Kaur (petitioner) had CRM No. M-30668 of 2009 2 developed illicit relations with Sukhdev Singh alias Kaka, husband of Jasvir Kaur. Jasvir Kaur was ultimately killed on 2nd August, 2006 by petitioner and co-accused in connivance with each other. The prosecution case is that the petitioner played a major role in the commission of crime. In the occurrence, which took place on 2nd August, 2006, the petitioner is stated to have given blows on both sides of forehead and mouth of the deceased by a brick. The motive of the crime is stated to be grudge of the accused as the deceased Jasvir Kaur wanted to stop her husband Sukhdev Singh from having illicit relations with the petitioner Sukhvir Kaur. Kaka Singh, brother of the deceased, is stated to be an eye-witness of the occurrence. In the facts and circumstances of the case, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail to the petitioner. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the magnitude of the crime and the punishment it would entail in the event of conviction, I find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. Long incarceration per se is no ground to extend the concession of bail to an accused as held by the apex court in the case reported as Rajesh Ranjan Yadav Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, 2007(1) SCC 70, para 10 whereof reads thus:- “In our opinion none of the aforesaid decisions can be said to have laid down any absolute and unconditional rule about when bail should be granted by the court and when it should not. It all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and it cannot be said that there is any absolute rule that because a long period of imprisonment has expired bail must necessarily be granted”. CRM No. M-30668 of 2009 3 It is, thus, clear that no case for bail is made out. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE November 04, 2009 'rajpal'