Mukesh Kumari vs State of Haryana

Daya Chaudhary, J.—The present application has been filed for vacation of stay order dated 17.12.2010 vide which the proceedings before the trial Court were stayed or in alternative, the applicant be released or trial Court be directed to entertain the bail application of the applicant-Petitioner.

Learned Counsel for the applicant-Petitioner submits that because of the order passed by this Court on 17.12.2010, proceedings before the trial Court were stayed and the bail application of the applicant was not being entertained and it has been observed by the trial Court that decision of the bail application is also a part of proceedings which have been stayed by the High Court. Learned Counsel further submits that the Petitioner is in custody since 16.8.2010 and he has been falsely implicated in the case and no evidence has come against the Petitioner during investigation and moreover, no purpose would be served by keeping the Petitioner behind the bars.

Learned State Counsel, on instructions from Dharam Singh SI, submits that only the name of the applicant-Petitioner is there in the FIR and no evidence is against him and a letter has been sent to Central Government for handing over the investigation of the case to CBI but no response thereof has been received so far.

In view of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties, the fact that a letter has been sent to the Central Government but no response has come out and the decision of the same may take time and moreover, no purpose would be served by keeping the Petitioner behind the bars, the application for bail can be decided by the trial Court. Accordingly, the trial Court is directed to entertain and decide the application of the Petitioner for bail and pass a speaking order in accordance with law.

Application is disposed of.