JAGBIR Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition has been filed by the husband of the deceased. The Petitioner is facing trial for offences under Sec. 498 -A, 306 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code for causing death of his wife Parveen. Allegations are that he treated the deceased with cruelty in connivance with his father Sh. Surian Singh. The Petitioner was arrested on 16th August, 2009 and is now in judicial custody.

(2.) The bail application preferred by the Petitioner was rejected on 16th February, 2010 by learned Additional Sessions Judge (II), Kangra at Dharamshala, holding that there was a prima facie case against him and that the application of his father has already been rejected by the learned Sessions Judge. The Court also holds that the circumstances on record clearly suggest that the accused are involved in a very serious offence of harassing and maltreating the deceased.

(3.) Evidence of four material witnesses on behalf of the prosecution stand already recorded. PW -1, Smt. Savitri Devi, mother of the deceased and PW -4 Sh. Rajesh Kumar, brother of the deceased have already been recorded. In addition two more witnesses, namely, PW -2 Madan Lal and PW -3 Chaman Lal have testified with respect to the material circumstances of death of the wife of the Petitioner. In this bail petition I am not making any observations on the evidence recorded, but I find from the order of the learned Additional Sessions Judge that after noticing a few judgments, he disposed of the application with the observation that there is prima facie material to implicate the accused in the case. Learned Assistant Advocate General submits that there has been no change in the circumstances since the last application has been filed and the filing of the present application. This submission can not be accepted; as the important change is that the material witnesses stand examined and in addition to them statements of two other witnesses have also been recorded. Without judging the respective submissions made by the counsel for the parties, all I need note is that the mother of the Petitioner has already been released on bail on 9.11.2009 and the Petitioner is in continuous detention for nine months. Moreover, the trial has also commenced and material witnesses have already been examined. I do not find any material on record which would indicate that the Petitioner will interfere in the smooth conducting of the trial or in any manner tamper with the prosecution witnesses.