High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Malkhan @ Tony Son Of Ramesh … vs State Of Punjab on 28 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Malkhan @ Tony Son Of Ramesh … vs State Of Punjab on 28 August, 2009
            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH

                                  Criminal Misc. No. M-17638 of 2009 (O/M).
                                          Date of Decision : August 28, 2009.

Malkhan @ Tony son of Ramesh resident of Village Sujaan Pur, P.S.
Rasulabad, District Mhati (U.P.), presently residing at Village Jatt Wali P.S.
Sadar Fazilka, District Ferozepur.
(Presently confined in Central Jail, Ferozepur).
                                                            ...... Petitioner .
                                    Versus.

State of Punjab.
                                                             ..... Respondent .

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH.

Present:- Mr. Avtar S. Khinda, Advocate,
for the petitioner .

Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G. Punjab,
for the respondent-State.

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).

Counsel for the petitioner contends that the allegations against

the petitioner to the extent that he had given four pastries to the complainant

and his wife, which instead of eating, they had given to the goat, who died

soon after eating the pastries. He further contends that the petitioner is in

custody since 21.01.2009 and till date even not a single witness has been

examined. He further contends that the charge has already been framed in

April, 2009, and in the light of the fact that there are 11 witnesses, who are to

be examined and till date none of the witnesses have been examined,

therefore, the trial is not likely to conclude soon.

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-State submits that

the chemical examiner report clearly shows that poison was mixed in the
Criminal Misc. No. M-17638 of 2009. -2-

pastries and the goat had died because of poison in it. He on this basis

submits that the petitioner should not be enlarged on bail.

I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through the

records of the case.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner was arrested on

21.01.2009 and the charge having been framed on 15.04.2009, but till date

none of the witnesses have been examined and further that 11 witnesses

have to be examined in the case by the prosecution, the trial is not likely to

conclude soon, therefore, detention of the petitioner in jail would not serve

any purpose.

In view of the above, the present petition is allowed. The

petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial

Court.

(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
JUDGE
August 28, 2009.

sjks.