(1.) Clarification is sought by way of this application to the effect that the order dated 9.2.2012 passed in a case registered by way of FIR No.17 dated 23.2.2010 at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar would be an order of bail in the case in which charge has been framed under section 306 IPC with the alternative charge for the offence under section 302 IPC.
(2.) It is a case where, to begin with, the FIR was registered for an offence punishable under section 302 IPC. However, the police filed challan in this case for an offence punishable under section 306 IPC. While framing charge, the court framed charge under section 306 IPC but in the alternative framed charge for the offence under section 302 IPC also. After the framing of charge, Lakhwinder Singh, the petitioner had applied for bail by way of Criminal Misc. No.M-39088 of 2011 and vide order dated 9.2.2012, bail was allowed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that it was a case of run-away marriage between the petitioner and the deceased. According to him, the parents of the girl were so annoyed with this marriage that they had burnt the house of the petitioner. He has further submitted that at the site of occurrence, the petitioner was found bolted inside the room while the deceased was found hanging outside the said room. He has further submitted that the challan had been submitted by the police under section 306 IPC and he sought bail in the case by mentioning the offence under section 306 IPC. He has submitted that the bail was granted taking the whole case into view and no difference would have occurred to the view taken by this court if the offence under section 302 would also have been mentioned therein. He has further submitted that section 302 IPC could not be mentioned in the petition on account of mistake and, therefore, the order in question would be deemed to have been passed granting bail to the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 306/302 IPC.