High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
LILA KRISHAN AND SAVITRI v. STATE OF HARYANA - CRM-41715-M-2005  RD-P&H 80 (28 July 2005)
Lila Krishan and Savitri Vs. State of Haryana Present: Mr. Ajai Lamba, Advocate, for the petitoienrs.
Mr. Sidharath Batra, AAG., Haryana.
Virender Singh, J.
This is the second bail application on behalf of the petitioners.
The earlier two petitions filed by the petitioners, registered as 32655/M of 2004 and 34063/M of 2004, were dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 7-3-2005.
Lila Krishan and Savitri, the petitioners herein are the parents- in-law of deceased Neelam, who was married to Ramesh, their son.
Neelam died an unnatural death on 30-4-2004, leaving behind a son of about two yerars. A case FIR No. 65 dated 30-4-2004 under Sections 498- A, 304-B read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code was registered with the concerned police against the petitioners, Ramesh Kumar-husband of the deceased and Rakesh, another son of the petitioners. Rakesh being a juvenile, has since been released on bail by the concerned Court.
I have heard Mr. Ajai Lamba, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sidharath Batra, learned Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ASI Tara Chand is present in Court with complete police file.
Criminal Misc. No. 41715-M of 2005 2
Mr. Lamba at the very out-set states that he does not press the application for bail on behalf of Lila Krishan/petitioner No.1 and the same may be dismissed as not pressed at this stage.
Praying for concession of bail qua Savitri, the mother-in-law, Mr. Lamba submits that when her earlier application was dismissed as withdrawn on 7.3.2005, at that time the grand son of the petitioners (i.e. son of the deceased) was staying with his great grand-mother Jhanku Devi, who was 85 years old. Jhanku Devi has expired on 29-5-2005. Photostat copy of her death certificate produced in Court today by Mr. Lamba is taken on record. The learned counsel submits that after the death of Jhanku Devi, there is no lady member in the house to look after the son of the deceased, who is hardly of the age of 2 years and for this reason, the petitioner deserves the concessional tilt.
According to Mr. Lamba, another fact which needs to be 2004 by the trial Court and the prosecution agency has not examined any material witness i.e. the witness from the complainant side till date.
According to Mr. Lamba, the complainant side is intentionally not turning up and the trial Court has been constrained to rather issue bailable warrants to secure their presence. To strengthen his submission, Mr. Lamba has produced a certified copy of the orders dated 25-2-2005 and 27-7-2005 (taken on record). According to the learned counsel, Savitri petitioner is in jail since 1.5.2004 and in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, when the complainant side is not turning up to give evidence, the trial is likely to take a considerable time. This fact also entitles the petitioner for the concession of regular bail.
Criminal Misc. No. 41715-M of 2005 3
The learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the submissions advanced by Mr. Lamba on facts. He, however, opposes the bail application vehemently.
In my considered view, whatever is submitted by Mr. Lamba the instant application, is certainly a changed circumstance, which entitles Savitri/ petitioner to the concession of regular bail.
Resultantly, the present application qua Savitri petitioner is allowed. She is ordered to be released on bail on her furnishing personal/ surety bond to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar.
However, the application on behalf of Lila Krishan petitioner is dismissed as not pressed at this stage.
September 7, 2005.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.