IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-15721 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 02.09.2009 Gurmit Singh ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amandeep Singh Rai, AAG, Punjab. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was married to the deceased Shaukin Kaur for more than 10 years back. According to the counsel, the allegations in the FIR are that the wife was killed by strangulation but the post-mortem report does not state that any strangulation marks have been noticed on the body of the deceased. He further contends that no injury either external or internal of any sort has been found on the body of the deceased in the post mortem report. Further, the cause of death has been stated to be Asphyxia and there can be so many reasons for the same. It is his contention that there is nothing on record to suggest that the death of the deceased was unnatural as no poison has also been detected in the report of the Chemical Examiner. His contention is that the petitioner is in custody since 4.6.2008 and till date, only one prosecution witness has been examined out of the total 15 prosecution witnesses. The petitioner being in custody for the last more than one Crl.Misc.No.M-15721 of 2009 -2- year and 3 months, the trial is not likely to conclude soon and, therefore, the continuation of the petitioner in jail is not required. He further contends that out of the wedlock, the petitioner had four children and there is no one to take care of them. On this basis, he prays for grant of regular bail to the petitioner. On the other hand, counsel for the State, submits that the next date of hearing before the trial Court is 11.9.2009. He, however, is unable to dispute the contention which has been raised by the counsel for the petitioner but submits that the cause of Asphyxia can only be determined on the basis of the evidence which is yet to be led before the trial Court and, therefore, the bail should not be granted to the petitioner. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. Counsel for the State has not been able to rebut the contention of counsel for the petitioner to the effect that there was no external or internal injury nor any strangulation marks present on the body of the deceased as per the post-mortem report and further no poison had been detected in the report of Chemical Examiner. Besides this, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody since 4.6.2008 and only one prosecution witness out of the total 15 witnesses has been examined and further that the trial is not likely to conclude soon and the petitioner has four children to look-after, the present petition is allowed. The petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. September 02, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE