High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Kushal Pal vs State Of Haryana on 15 April, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kushal Pal vs State Of Haryana on 15 April, 2009
Criminal Misc. No. M-8134 of 2009                                 1




      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh.



                   Criminal Misc. No. M-8134 of 2009

                      Date of Decision: 15.4.2009


Kushal Pal
                                                          ...Petitioner
                                Versus
State of Haryana
                                                       ...Respondent


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA.


Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate
         for the petitioner.

         Mr. S.S. Mor, Senior Deputy Advocate
         General, Haryana, for the State.


Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral)

The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C.

seeking bail to the petitioner in case FIR No. 934 dated 1.11.2006

registered at Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, under Sections 148, 149,

302, 307, 212 & 120-B IPC.

In the present case, prosecution has cited 31 witnesses. 22

witnesses have been recorded. Three witnesses have been given up by

the prosecution.

A report was sought from the trial Court. Trial Court stated

that only six witnesses remain to be examined and the case was fixed

for recording of evidence on 1.4.2009.

Criminal Misc. No. M-8134 of 2009 2

Counsel for the petitioner submits that on 1.4.2009 one

witness was examined and next date of hearing is 2.5.2009.

Trial Court has submitted that the trial can be concluded within

two or three months.

Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that case of the

petitioner cannot be distinguished from the case of co-accused Rajesh

alias Lakhmi Chand who was granted bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of

this Court on 16.12.2008.

Counsel for the State has submitted that one Pistol along with

two live cartridges were recovered from the petitioner.

To counter this argument, Mr. Yadav has submitted that mere

recovery will not fasten the petitioner with the offence of murder.

This Court will deist from examining the merits of the case as

the trial is at the fag end. Furthermore, the testimony of 23 witnesses

examined is not before this Court. Judicial propriety demands that this

Court should not grant bail when the trial is likely to conclude within two

months.

Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial within two months

from the receipt of copy of this order, from the next date of hearing.

With the observations made above, the present petition is

disposed off.

Copy of this order be sent to the trial Court, for compliance.

(Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia)
Judge
April 15, 2009
“DK”