JASWINDER PAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this application is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, who is in custody since 23.11.2009 on the ground that the trial is not likely to conclude soon.

(2.) It is the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that initially, the FIR was registered against the petitioner alone and thereafter, during the investigation, the complainant named the wife of petitioner (Sukhwinder Kaur) and the brother of the petitioner (Satpal @ Kala). The Investigating agency further found the allegations against the wife and brother of the petitioner to be false and did not present the challan against them nor found any offence against the petitioner under Section 376 IPC. Challan was thus presented against the petitioner only under Section 420 IPC. He contends that thereafter, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C was moved by the prosecution in which petitioner's wife-Sukhwinder Kaur, brother Satpal @ Kala, mother-Surjit Kaur and sisters-Manjit Kaur and Bebo were summoned by the trial court. These accused challenged the order summoning them as accused in Criminal Revision No.1530 of 2010 in which notice of motion was issued and proceedings qua them stand stayed vide order on 26.05.2010. Thereafter, trial proceeded against Jaswinder Pal-petitioner in which prosecution evidence stands concluded. Counsel for the petitioner has made a statement in Court that he does not want to lead any defence evidence but the trial court is not passing the final order in the light of pendency of Criminal Revision No.1530 of 2010. He contends that in Criminal Revision No.1530 of 2010, service is not effected upon the complainant namely Santosh Kumari as she is residing abroad. Due to the pendency of this Criminal Revision Petition, the petitioner is suffering and is being prejudiced by continuing in custody without any fault of his. He contends that it is not known as to when finally the revision petition would be decided by this Court and till then, the petitioner would be forced to continue in custody. No prejudice would be caused to the prosecution as the prosecution evidence already stand concluded and the complainant also resides abroad therefore, there is no any threat from the petitioner to the complainant. Earlier the petitioner had approached this court by filing Criminal Misc. No.35722 of 2010 which was disposed on 25.02.2011 by this Court by directing the trial court to expedite the trial and make efforts to conclude the same within four months from the date fixed before the trial court. Despite this direction, the trial court is unable to conclude the proceedings because of the pendency of the criminal revision petition. With this factual background, he prays for grant of bail to the petitioner.

(3.) Counsel for the State could not dispute the assertion as putforth by the learned counsel for the petitioner. However, he opposes the prayer for grant of bail on the ground that there are serious allegations against the petitioner and he has committed offence of rape and cheating.