AMIN CHAND AND ANOTHER Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a bail application on behalf of Amin Chand son of Trikha Ram and Sukhbir Singh son of Amin Chand, the father and son respectively. They are facing trial under Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code. In para 6 of this application it has been mentioned that the petitioner Amin Chand is an old man aged about 80 years and remains ill. The certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, Faridabad, is attached as Annexure P-6 to' this petition". I find that Annexure P-6 does not pertain to Amin Chand petitioner but pertains to Trikha Ram father of Amin Chand. It seems that due to this mistake which was not pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioners, J.S. Sekhon, J. vide his order dated 4th June 1990, ordered that report of the Doctor Incharge of Gurgaon Jail where Amin Chand petitioner is confined be called for June 18, 1990, regarding adequate arrangement for his treatment and about his present condition. In the application though there is a mention about the sickness of Amin Chand in para 6 of the application, but in fact as stated above, this is not correct as neither Amin Chand is 80 years old nor Annexure P-6, a certificate regarding sickness, pertains to Amin Chand. Mr. J.N. Kaushal, learned -Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that it was the mistake in para 6 of the petition which must have led to the passing of the order by J.S. Sekhon, J. on 4th June 1990. Otherwise also no report of the' Doctor Incharge of Gurgaon Jail pertaining to Amin Chand has been received.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners as' well as the learned counsel for the State. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that J.S. Sekhon, J. vide his order dated 20th Feb., 1990, while declining bail had ordered that the charge-sheet be put up within .a fortnight of the date of the said order. It has been brought to my notice that in fact the charge sheet has been put in. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that almost three months have passed since the putting of the charge sheet and both the petitioners are behind the bars since Dec., 1989. Taking into consideration the allegations in the FIR and the documents attached with the application, which are the letters purported to have been written by the deceased, as also the age of Amin Chand, I am inclined to grant bail to Amin Chand (father-in-law of the deceased) pending trial, however, no case has been made out for granting bail to Sukhbir Singh (husband of the deceased). While rejecting bail to Sukhbir Singh, the other petitioner Amin Chand is granted bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridabad. Petition partly allowed.