High CourtsSingle Bench

Jasbir vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 29 October 2018 · Citation: (2018) 10 P&H CK 0198

HON’BLE JUDGES
Inderjit Singh, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 439 · Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34, 201, 302
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous (M) No.46630 of 2018
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 384 words

Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.437 dated

15.07.2017, registered at Police Station City Sonepat, District Sonepat, under Sections 302, 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code.

Notice of motion has been issued. Learned State counsel has appeared on behalf of the respondent-State and contested this petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned State counsel and gone through the record.

From the record, I find that FIR regarding death of Pinki wife of Sunil has been got registered against unknown persons. During the investigation, it

was found that Sunil, husband of Pinki has killed his wife with the help of the present petitioner. The present petitioner has been nominated on the

disclosure statement of main accused-Sunil and attribution to him (present petitioner) is that he caught hold of the legs of the deceased. No injury has

been attributed to him. He has no motive to kill the wife of main accused.

Learned State counsel submits that the present petitioner agreed to help the main accused for Rs.40,000/-, out of which an amount of Rs.20,000/- has

already been received by him from main accused-Sunil.

Perusal of record shows that main accused is Sunil, who has killed his wife in his house. The present petitioner is not the main accused and he has

been named by the co-accused. Moreover, brother and father of the deceased, who had already been examined, have not supported the prosecution

version during their cross-examinations.

The petitioner has been in custody since 23.07.2017. He is not required for any investigation or interrogation purposes as he is in judicial custody. The

trial of case may take a long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the final disposal of the case.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case; without discussing the facts in minute detail and without expressing any opinion on

the merits of the case, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing

personal bonds in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate.