Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab

High Court Of Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh 1 Mar 2007 Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4739-M of 2007 (2007) 03 P&H CK 0183
Bench: Single Bench
Acts Referenced

Judgement Snapshot

Case Number

Criminal Miscellaneous No. 4739-M of 2007

Hon'ble Bench

Satish Kumar Mittal, J

Advocates

Surinder Garg, for the Appellant; N.S. Gill, AAG, Punjab, for the Respondent

Acts Referred
  • Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (CrPC) - Section 319, 439
  • Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) - Section 304B, 34

Judgement Text

Translate:

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.@mdashPetitioner Harbans Singh has filed this petition u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 191 dated 18.7.2006 u/s 304-B/34 IPC, registered at Police Station City Faridkot, District Faridkot.

2. I have heard counsel for the parties and gone through the contents of the FIR as well as the order dated 20.11.2006, passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, whereby bail application of the Petitioner has been dismissed.

In this case, it has been alleged that just before the alleged occurrence, the Petitioner, who is father-in-law of the deceased and is in custody since 26.7.2006, along with other co-accused demanded an amount of Rs. 50,000/- for house repair.

3. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that initially, the husband of the deceased was not challaned, but subsequently, on the statement of the complainant, he has also been summoned u/s 319 Code of Criminal Procedure to face trial. Counsel further contends that the husband has been granted anticipatory bail and the wife of brother-in-law (Jethani) and mother-in-law of the deceased are in custody. He further contends that in view of the fact that the husband has been summoned u/s 319 Cr.P.C., the two witnesses, already examined by the prosecution, have to be examined again and the trial is not likely to conclude soon.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts as well as the nature of allegations, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I deem it appropriate to grant regular bail to the Petitioner and he is, accordingly, ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

From The Blog
Supreme Court Clarifies Section 27 Evidence Act: Only “Fact Discovered” Admissible, Not Entire Statement
Nov
19
2025

Court News

Supreme Court Clarifies Section 27 Evidence Act: Only “Fact Discovered” Admissible, Not Entire Statement
Read More
Bar Council of India Defends Rules Allowing Foreign Law Firms in Delhi High Court
Nov
19
2025

Court News

Bar Council of India Defends Rules Allowing Foreign Law Firms in Delhi High Court
Read More