Jeeto Kaur @ Jeeto @ Jeeta Kaur vs State of Punjab

H.S.GREWAL, J. (ORAL)

This is the third petition for seeking regular bail under Section 483 of the BNSS, 2023 (U/s 439 Cr.P.C.) in FIR No. 80 dated 08.05.2024, registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code (Corresponding Sections 103, 3(5) of BNS), Section 238 of BNS added later on (Corresponding Section 201 IPC) at Police Station Ajnala, District Amritsar.

The case of the prosecution is that on 07.05.2024, at about 12:00 noon, the complainant along with her grandson Pawan Singh had gone to visit her daughter Veer Kaur. It is alleged that a quarrel was taking place between neighbours, namely Judge Singh and his brother Raju Singh, and when Veer Kaur intervened to pacify them, accused Judge Singh, his wife (petitioner) and their son Ramu Singh @ Mangga Singh armed with wooden sticks, assaulted her, causing multiple injuries. Upon hearing her cries, her grandson Pawan Singh reached the spot and tried to rescue her. It is further alleged that Veer Kaur was initially treated at home; however, on the morning of 08.05.2024, as her condition deteriorated, she was taken to Civil Hospital, Ajnala, where she was declared dead.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years, 01 month and 06 days and is not involved in any other case. He, thus, prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

Notice of motion.

Mr. Subhash Godara, Addl. A.G., Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the State and has vehemently opposed the prayer for grant of regular bail to the petitioner on the ground of gravity of allegations. He has filed the custody certificate in the Court today and the same is taken on record. He submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years, 01 month and 06 days and out of total cited 22 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

After hearing the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case that the petitioner is in custody for the last 02 years, 01 month and 06 days and is not involved in any other case; out of total cited 22 prosecution witnesses, only 02 witnesses have been examined so far; the conclusion of trial is likely to take time and continuous detention of the petitioner would not serve the ends of justice, this Court deems it fit to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial. Moreover, 'bail is the rule and jail is the exception'.

Therefore, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the instant petition is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on her furnishing requisite bail bonds, surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Magistrate/Chief Judicial Magistrate concerned.

Nothing discussed hereinabove shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.

It is clarified that while on bail so granted through the instant order, if the petitioner is found indulging in any other criminal case, it shall be open to the State to seek cancellation of her bail.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.