CRM No. M-20356 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-20356 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.9.2009 Rattan Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Ms. GK Mann, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition praying for grant of regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 302, 201 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Ramdass, District Amritsar, vide FIR No.107 dated 29th November, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was earlier released on bail under Section 167 (2) Cr.P.C. as challan was not presented within the period prescribed. However, bail was later cancelled by this court vide order dated May 25, 2009 in Crl. Misc. No. M-5660 of 2009. Learned counsel has argued that there is no evidence available against the petitioner of any role in the commission of crime. He, thus, deserves to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. She has further emphasized that marriage between the deceased CRM No. M-20356 of 2009 2 and the petitioner was solemnized 16 years back and there was no complaint at any stage. Thus, it cannot be inferred that the petitioner was responsible for death of his wife. Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the prayer. He has submitted that charge has been framed against the petitioner under Section 302 IPC. The body of the deceased was cremated without any information to her parents despite the fact that they live at a distance of only 2 K.Ms from matrimonial house of the deceased. According to the counsel, due to this reason, offence under Section 201 IPC was also added. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. Earlier, the petitioner was granted the concession of bail by the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Ajnala on a technical ground that the challan was not presented within the prescribed period. The bail order was, however, cancelled by a detailed judgment delivered by a coordinate bench (S.S. Saron, J.) on May 25, 2009 in Crl. Misc. No. M-5660 of 2009. The offence was earlier under Section 306 IPC, but later on charge was framed under Section 302 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar vide order dated 30.4.2009. It is evident that body of the deceased is alleged to have been cremated without any information to her parents. Due to cremation of the deceased in haste, no postmortem could be conducted on the dead-body. Under the circumstances, I do not find it a fit case for CRM No. M-20356 of 2009 3 enlarging the petitioner on bail keeping in view the gravity of the offence, the manner of its commission and the punishment, it would entail in case of conviction. I, thus, find no merit in this petition. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE September 10, 2009 'rajpal'