LOKINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is being prosecuted for having committed the murder of his wife. Initially, the petitioner had been charged under Sections , 304B, and 406 IPC. The death is said to have occurred on 31.5.1998. The petitioner was taken into custody. His application for bail was dismissed on 14.1.1999. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.8.1998. The FIR has been registered after a period of six days. When the entire evidence of the prosecution has been led, an application was moved before the trial Court for framing of charge under section 302 IPC. This application was dismissed by the trial court by order dated 10.9.1999. In this order, the trial court observed that the entire evidence of the prosecution has been led. Only the accused remained to be examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. It was also observed that at this stage, it would not be proper to decide as to whether the accused committed offence under Section 302. IPC. Inspite of the application having been dismissed, another order has been passed on 19.7.2000 whereby charge under Section 302 IPC has been framed. No fresh evidence has been led by the prosecution.

(2.) MR . Rai relies on Section 362 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to submit that the subsequent order passed by the trial court is contrary to law as it amounts to review on merits of the order passed on 10.9.1999. In Section 362 Cr.P.C. it is provided that once the Court signs the judgment, it becomes final. The Court, thereafter, can alter or review the same only to correct a clerical or arithmetical error. However, it would be not proper to make any comment on the aforesaid submission as the same is pending adjudication in Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2000. After passing of the order, framing the charge under Section 302 IPC, the petitioner filed a Criminal Revision No. 1030 of 2000 and in the aforesaid revision, further proceedings before the trial Court have been stayed. Consequently, the trial is not likely to be completed in near further. The petitioner has been in custody since 26.8.1998. Since the entire evidence of the prosecution has been led, it would not be possible to hold, at this stage, that the petitioner is in a position to tamper with the evidence, which may be led by the prosecution. At this stage, he would also not be in a position to influence the witnesses. The petitioner has been in custody for a period of more than two years. Therefore, without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, I am satisfied that the case for grant of bail is made out.