MURTI DEVI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is mother -in -law of the deceased. She is in custody since 1.4.1997. Mr. Cheema admits that 1 -1/2 years old child of the deceased is now no more with the petitioner, who is in jail. The child is living with the brother of the petitioner, but he contends that no progress is being made in the case. The decision of the case will take a very long time; therefore, under Section 437 of Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner is entitled to be enlarged on bail. She lost her husband three months before this incident. Her both the sons are in jail. Her unmarried daughter alone is on bail.

(2.) MR . Gill submits that the case is at the evidence stage, but he admitted that 14 witnesses were summoned for 19.1.1998; only one Head Constable appeared, who was examined for 20.1.1998, nine witnesses were summoned, but only father of the deceased Dewan Chand is examined. His cross -examination was deferred on the request of the defence counsel. No other witness was present in the Court. On receiving instructions from Kehar Singh, Assistant Sub Inspector, he submits that the Court has issued bailable warrants against the witnesses.

(3.) THE above statement of facts shows that the wintesses are served, but they have chosen not to appear in the Court. The Police Officer -in -charge of this murder case has not taken pains to keep the witnesses present despite service. This also shows that the case is proceeding at snails speed. Petitioner is in custody since long. She, being a woman, is entitled to be enlarged on bail.