Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1111 (PNJ)

Krishan v. State Of Haryana

2021-06-30

RAJ MOHAN SINGH

body2021
JUDGMENT Raj Mohan Singh, J. - The case has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing. 2. Petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.384 dated 08.12.2020 registered under Sections 120-B, 328 and 379 IPC at Police Station Israna, District Panipat. 3. The FIR was registered at the instance of complainant Dinesh son of Ram Bhaj. Dinesh was married to Sunita on 02.12.2020 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. Petitioner had introduced Dinesh son of Udalat, his wife and his mother Krishna to the complainant for the purpose of aforesaid matrimonial relationship. After solemnizing the marriage, the complainant and his parents took meals together and thereafter, Sunita served milk to them. After consuming the same, they got fainted. When they regained their consciousness, they found themselves to be in the hospital. Allegations are of administering poison by Sunita. The allegations are that when the complainant party came to the house, they found the house scattered and Sunita was missing. Sunita took away cash amount of Rs.80,000/- and other articles, which were given to her as gift in the marriage. Allegations are that Dinesh, his wife, his mother Krishna, sister Bimlesh and the petitioner had helped Sunita in the aforesaid occurrence. Petitioner was arrested on 27.03.2021. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had only introduced Dinesh son of Udalat, Krishna mother of Dinesh and Pooja wife of Dinesh and allegations are of connivance, which would be adjudicated by the Court on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties at the relevant stage. 5. Learned State counsel, however, opposed the bail on the ground that the allegations are of connivance and the petitioner was one of the mediators, who introduced the complainant party with the accused. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the allegations of connivance would be tested by the Court at the relevant stage on the basis of evidence to be led by the parties. Petitioner is only a mediator and no overt-act has been alleged in the context of administering poisonous substance to the complainant and his family members. 7. Petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2021. Challan has already been presented. 8. Petitioner is only a mediator and no overt-act has been alleged in the context of administering poisonous substance to the complainant and his family members. 7. Petitioner is in custody since 27.03.2021. Challan has already been presented. 8. In view of above, it would be just and appropriate to enlarge the petitioner on regular bail without meaning anything on merits of the case. 9. In view of above, petition is allowed. Petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail, subject to his furnishing adequate bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court/concerned Duty Magistrate. 10. Nothing expressed hereinabove would be construed to be an expression of any opinion on merits of the case.