IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. 50459 of 2008 in
Crl. Appeal No. 108-DB of 2005
Date of decision: December 11, 2008
Smt. Bhagwati and another
..... Applicants/appellants
Versus
State of Haryana
..... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S. SARON.
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA.
Present: Mr. Baldev Singh, Senior Advocate with
Mr. Deepinder Singh, Advocate for the
applicant -Bhagwati (appellant No.1).
Mr. H.S. Sran, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
S.S. SARON, J.
Heard counsel for the parties.
The affidavit of Sh. Risal Singh, Superintendent Jail, Narnaul filed in
Court today is taken on record.
The applicant Bhagwati Devi (appellant No.1) by way of the Crl. Misc.
application seeks suspension of her sentence of imprisonment during the pendency of
the appeal.
In terms of the Custody Certificate, the applicant Smt. Bhagwati
(appellant No.1) as on 06.9.2008 has undergone actual imprisonment of four years,
six months and twenty-seven days which includes a period of more than three years
after her conviction.
A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dharampal V. State of
Haryana, 1999 (4) RCR (Crl.) 600 laid down certain guidelines which provide that
life convicts who have undergone five years of imprisonment of which three years
should be after conviction should be released on bail pending hearing of the appeal.
It was further provided that the period of five years should be reduced to four years
Crl. Misc. No. 50459 of 2008 in [2]
Crl. Appeal No. 108-DB of 2005
for females and minors with at least two years’ imprisonment after conviction. The
applicant is a lady. Therefore, the parameters as laid down in Dharampal’s case
(supra) have been satisfied in the present case as well.
Learned Senior counsel has also referred to the cross-examination of
Leela Ram complainant (PW-6) who has stated that Police had taken Smt. Bhagwati
(applicant/appellant No.1) in custody on 12.5.2004. It is submitted that Suraj Bhan
(PW-8) has stated that on 17.5.2004 both the accused Smt. Bhagwati
(applicant/appellant No.1) and Attar Singh (non-applicant/appellant No.2) had come
to the baithak of Rameshwar and made an extra judicial confession that they had
murdered Sandeep. It is submitted that in case Smt. Bhagwait (appellant
No.1/applicant) had been taken in custody on 12.5.2004, she could not have gone to
the baithak of Rameshwar on 17.5.2004 and made an extra judicial confession. In
support of his contention, reliance is placed on case titled State of Haryana v.
Jagbir Singh, 1978 Criminal Law Journal 152 (SC). The contentions as raised
would more appropriately be considered and gone into at the time of final hearing of
the appeal. However, the applicant having undergone more than four and a half years
of imprisonment, it would be just and expedient to suspend her sentence of
imprisonment.
Accordingly, Crl. Misc. No.50459 of 2008 is allowed and the sentence
of imprisonment of the applicant Smt. Bhagwati (appellant No.1) shall during the
pendency of the appeal remain suspended subject to her furnishing personal bond and
surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narnaul.
(S.S. SARON)
JUDGE
December 11, 2008 (SABINA)
amit JUDGE