Rattan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 15 April, 2009

0
42
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rattan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 15 April, 2009
           In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
                                    ......


                    Criminal Misc. No.M-8479 of 2009
                                   .....

                                                    Date of decision:15.4.2009


                                Rattan Singh
                                                                 .....Petitioner
                                      v.

                              State of Haryana
                                                               .....Respondent
                                      ....


Present:     Mr. V.S. Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

             Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana
             for the respondent-State.
                                     .....

S.S. Saron, J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The application seeking regular bail filed by the petitioner was

dismissed by this Court on 26.2.2009. The petitioner now seeks bail as an

interim measure for 15 days to look after his ailing wife, who is admitted in

General Hospital, Hisar. It is submitted that the wife of the petitioner is to

be operated because of fracture of Femur.

Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there are other

family members who can look after the wife of the petitioner. Besides, the

petitioner is alleged to have committed a heinous crime and, therefore, is

not entitled for bail even as an interim measure.

I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The

bed-head ticket (Annexure-P.4) of the wife of the petitioner has been placed

on record. The date of admission is shown as 3.3.2009. It has been

observed that Santosh, wife of the petitioner has history of pain on the left
Cr. Misc. No.M-8479 of 2009
[2]

thigh since one month. She was operated for Femur about seven years back

and she has been advised operation. The operation has not been performed

till date.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the

presence of the petitioner with his wife is utmost necessity. Besides, the

petitioner will not misuse the concession of bail while he is at large and he

may be granted bail on his furnishing heavy surety.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances, in my

view, the presence of the petitioner would indeed be necessary for his wife

to undergo the operation. Besides, the petitioner has sought bail for 15 days

only. The daughter of the petitioner, namely, Aparna is also physically

handicapped as per the certificate dated 21.1.2009 (Annexure-P.3).

Therefore, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and

two sureties to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar

shall be admitted to bail as an interim measure for 15 days. The period of

15 days shall be reckoned from the date of release. On the expiry of 15

days, the petitioner shall surrender in jail. He shall file necessary

undertaking before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Hisar undertaking

to surrender on the expiry of 15 days.

The criminal miscellaneous petition stands disposed of.

April 15, 2009. (S.S. Saron)
Judge
*hsp*

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here