305 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA BALJINDER KAUR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate and Mr. Dipanshu Kapur, Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. HARKESH MANUJA 1. By way prayer has been made for grant o dated 12.05.2023 registered under Sections 304, 328 IPC (Sections 201, 34 of IPC and Section 27 NDPS Act, 1985 were added later on) at Police Station City implicated with the allegations of murder of Mandeep Singh Jhuneer i.e. husband of complainant. 2. Learned counsel for the present case, the prosecution version and thus, the pet past almost 1 year and 8 months deserves concession of bail as the trial is likely to take some time. 3. On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been opposed at the instance of learned State counsel while submittin unless the other prosecution Kaur who happened to see the petitioner having administered injection THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: BALJINDER KAUR Versus STATE OF PUNJAB HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Mr. S.S. Rana, Advocate and Mr. Dipanshu Kapur, Advocate for the Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (ORAL) By way of this second petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, prayer has been made for grant of regular bail in case FIR No. 0095 12.05.2023 registered under Sections 304, 328 IPC (Sections 201, 34 of IPC and Section 27 NDPS Act, 1985 were added later on) at Police Station City-I, District Sangrur, wherein, the petitioner has been with the allegations of murder of Mandeep Singh Jhuneer i.e. husband of complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner the complainant while appearing as PW the prosecution version and thus, the petitioner who is in custody for the past almost 1 year and 8 months deserves concession of bail as the trial is likely to take some time. On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been opposed at the instance of learned State counsel while submittin the other prosecution witnesses namely Pal Kaur and Da Kaur who happened to see the petitioner having administered injection THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-53744-2024 Date of Decision: January 09, 2025 ........Petitioner ........Respondent HARKESH MANUJA Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Nitesh Sharma, DAG, Punjab. of this second petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, f regular bail in case FIR No. 0095 12.05.2023 registered under Sections 304, 328 IPC (Sections 201, 34 of IPC and Section 27 NDPS Act, 1985 were added later on) at I, District Sangrur, wherein, the petitioner has been with the allegations of murder of Mandeep Singh Jhuneer i.e. petitioner submits that in the the complainant while appearing as PW-1 did not support itioner who is in custody for the past almost 1 year and 8 months deserves concession of bail as the On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been opposed at the instance of learned State counsel while submitting that witnesses namely Pal Kaur and Davinder Kaur who happened to see the petitioner having administered injection 2024 January 09, 2025 of this second petition filed under Section 439 CrPC, f regular bail in case FIR No. 0095 12.05.2023 registered under Sections 304, 328 IPC (Sections 201, 34 of IPC and Section 27 NDPS Act, 1985 were added later on) at I, District Sangrur, wherein, the petitioner has been with the allegations of murder of Mandeep Singh Jhuneer i.e. submits that in the 1 did not support itioner who is in custody for the past almost 1 year and 8 months deserves concession of bail as the On the other hand, the prayer made herein has been g that vinder TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.01.10 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-53744-2024 -2- to the deceased besides she carrying away his dead body are examined, the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. In the present case, investigation stands concluded with the filing of challan followed by framing of charges and the complainant who happened to be wife of the deceased while appearing as PW-1 did not support the prosecution version. The present is not a case of an eye- witness account and the chain of events regarding the circumstances revolving around the incident in question need to be established during trial. Moreover, the petitioner is in custody for the past almost 1 year & 8 months and the trial is likely to take some time. Besides it, the petitioner is not involved in any other case. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find justification to extend her incarceration any further. 6. In view of the above, without commenting anything on the merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the concerned learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate. 7. Nothing expressed hereinabove shall be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 09.01.2025 (HARKESH MANUJA) Tejwinder JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No TEJWINDER SINGH 2025.01.10 14:53 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document