JUDGMENT Mr. T.P.S. Mann, J. (Oral):- The petitioner, who is in custody since 22.11.2012, has prayed for her release on bail, during the pendency of the trial of the case. 2. According to the prosecution, Onkar Singh-husband of the complainant Harinder Kaur had come to India from England on 14.1.2012. On 23.1.2012 he, alongwith the petitioner, who was his aunt left for Raja Sansi Airport, Amritsar as he was to board a flight for going back to England. After reaching the Airport, he informed his wife that he had missed the flight and as he was indisposed of, he was going back to the village and would return to England after sometime. Later on, the complainant received a telephonic call from the petitioner informing her that when she, alongwith Onkar Singh had come out of the Airport, the health of Onkar Singh deteriorated and he expired on the way. In order to await the arrival of the near relatives of Onkar Singh, his dead body was kept in a mortuary. After reaching India, the complainant talked to her relatives and learnt that her husband Onkar Singh had died a natural death and no body was at fault. Later on, the proceedings under Section 174 Cr.P.C were undertaken and the dead body was subjected to post mortem examination. After receipt of the viscera report, the doctor opined that the death of Onkar Singh was caused by poisoning. Accordingly, FIR under Section 302 IPC was registered and the present petitioner arrested. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Som Nath and Gurwinder Singh, two star witnesses of the prosecution have not supported the case of the prosecution, during the trial of the case. PW3 Som Nath was to depose about the making of extra-judicial confession by the petitioner, whereas PW4 Gurwinder Singh was to testify about the property dispute. Both of them were declared hostile by the trial Court and crossexamined by the Public Prosecutor, but still no material could be brought on record to prove the prosecution case in regard to the above two circumstances. It is further submitted that the petitioner is 66 years of age and is behind the bars for the last more than one year and two months. The trial of the case is held up on account of non-examination of Jagtar Singh as said Jagtar Singh is presently residing abroad. It is further submitted that the petitioner is 66 years of age and is behind the bars for the last more than one year and two months. The trial of the case is held up on account of non-examination of Jagtar Singh as said Jagtar Singh is presently residing abroad. Therefore, the petitioner be released on bail. 4. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner. 5. Without commenting on the merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either party, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner deserves the concession of bail, during the pendency of the trial of the case. 6. The present petition is, accordingly, accepted. The petitioner be released on bail on her furnishing appropriate bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar. ---------0.B.S.0------------