CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2004) 12 P&H CK 0065

Krishna Devi Handa vs State of Haryana

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 10 December 2004 · Citation: (2004) 12 CriminalCC 471 : (2005) 1 RCR(Criminal) 325

HON’BLE JUDGES
Satish Kumar Mittal, J
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 50692-M of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

6 paragraphs · 359 words

Satish Kumar Mittal, J.—Petitioner Krishna Devi, mother-in-law of the deceased, who is 50 years of age, has filed this petitioner u/s 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.227 dated 18.6.2004 under Sections 304-B/34 IPC registered at Police Station City, Karnal.

2.

In this case, the marriage of the deceased was solemnised four years prior to the date of occurrence. The deceased was having two children aged 3 years and 14 months, respectively. The three accused, namely, the petitioner, the husband and father-in-law of the deceased are facing the trial. All the three members of the family are in custody. The aforesaid two children of the deceased are also in jail as there is nobody in the house to look after them.

3.

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the younger child who is only 14 months old is suffering from serious heart ailment as there is a hole in his heart. In this regard, treatment was also going on even prior to the date of occurrence and to this effect the counsel for the petitioner has referred to the Prescription slip and report of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi (Annexures P-3 and P-4), which are much prior to the date of occurrence.

4.

In view of the aforesaid factual position, counsel for the petitioner submits that all the family members have been implicated in this case even though the allegations against the petitioner are vague. He prays that the petitioner who is in custody since 5.7.2004 may be given the concession regular bail keeping in view the aforesaid facts. The said prayer has been opposed by the counsel for the respondent-State only on the ground that the offence u/s 304-B is a heinous crime and the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail.

5.

After hearing the counsel for the parties and particularly keeping in view the fact that two children are also in jail out of which, one is suffering from heart ailment, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner.

Bail to the satisfaction of CJM, Karnal.