IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-30222 of 2009 Date of Decision:- 25.11.2009 Birbal Chand ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Haryana ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.R.A.Sheoran, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Yash Pal Malik, AAG, Haryana. *** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is working at Ucal Fuel Systems Limited, Noida, Employee Code No.5100, which is at a distance of 150 Kms. from Bhiwani. At the time of occurrence, the petitioner was on duty, which counsel states relying upon the photocopy of the attendance register and the entry time of the petitioner attached as Annexures P-3 and P-4 respectively. He, on this basis, contends that the petitioner was not present at the place of occurrence. His further contention is that no witness has stated during investigation that the petitioner was present when the deceased got burn injuries. His further contention is that petitioner's father and mother were present at the house when the wife of the petitioner caught fire and in an effort to save her, both the father and mother of the petitioner also got burnt. In support of this contention, counsel has placed on record the photographs offather and mother as Annexure P-2. He, on this basis, submits that the petitioner being not present at the spot, the concession of bail be granted to him. That apart, he contends that the petitioner is in custody since 9.6.2009 and the next date before the trial Court for prosecution evidence is 23.12.2009. The trial is not likely to conclude soon as there are 12 prosecution witnesses who are to Crl.Misc.No.M-30222 of 2009 -2- be examined. On the other hand, counsel for the State submits that the allegations against the petitioner are with regard to demand of dowry. He contends that the wife of the petitioner had died because of burn injuries and, therefore, the concession of bail should not be granted to the petitioner, however, on instructions from ASI Sher Singh City Bhiwani states that there is no statement of any prosecution witness who had alleged that the petitioner was at the spot when the deceased caught fire. I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In view of the fact that there is no evidence on record as of now to suggest that the petitioner was present at the spot as also keeping in view the fact that efforts were indeed made by the father and mother of the petitioner, who were present at the spot to save the life of the deceased, who had caught fire and in the process they themselves had received severe burn injuries, as is apparent from the photographs Annexure P-2, which is not disputed by the prosecution. Further incarceration of the petitioner would not be called for in the light of the fact that the case is now fixed for prosecution evidence on 23.12.2009 and none of the witnesses has been examined till today out of the 12 witnesses cited by the prosecution. The trial is not likely to conclude soon. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court. Observations made above, shall have no bearing on the merits of the trial. November 25, 2009 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE