274 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M- 65844-2025 Date of Decision: 01.12.2025 YOGESH ALIAS YOGESH SINGH … PETITIONER VERSUS STATE OF PUNJAB ....RESPONDENT CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. G. S. Minhas, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Luvinder Sofat, Sr. DAG, Punjab.

Ms. Saroj Kumari, Advocate for Mr. J.P. Sharma, Advocate for the complainant.

KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL)

The jurisdiction of this Court under Section 483 BNSS has been invoked for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.119, dated 22.05.2022, registered under Sections 304-B, 406, 498-A, 120-B IPC (alternate charge under Section 302 added later on) at Police Station Kotwali, Kapurthala.

2. The 1^st bail petition was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court by way of a reasoned order dated 30.01.2024.

3. Subsequently, vide order dated 15.05.2025 passed in CRM-M-10597-2025, a detailed order was passed in which the second petition seeking regular bail has been dismissed by this Court. The relevant portion of the same reads thus:

3. In compliance with the order dated 03.03.2025, a status report dated 08.05.2025 has already been filed by the learned State counsel, detailing as to what causes delay in the conduct of the trial. Referring to the same, it is submitted that the trial is now advancing as out of the 30 witnesses cited, 16 have been examined and 06 witnesses have been dropped by the prosecution. The remaining witnesses have been summoned for the next date of hearing before the learned trial Court, which is fixed for 02.06.2025. On merits, learned State counsel submits that the marriage of the now deceased was solemnized with the petitioner on 29.04.2018, who was living with the petitioner at his place of posting on the date of the occurrence of unfortunate incident. Serious allegations have been leveled against the petitioner by the complainant, that the petitioner use to commit acts of cruelty against the deceased for the demand of dowry. It was alleged by the complainant that on 20.05.2022, the deceased was beaten up by the present petitioner, about which she told the complainant and also asked him to transfer her some money. Thereafter, on the next day, the complainant was informed that his daughter had passed away. As per the postmortem report of the deceased, 09 injuries were found present on her person, all of which were declared to be ante-

mortem in nature.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

5. Prima facie, serious allegations have been levelled against the petitioner. The deceased had passed away at the place of residence of the petitioner. Further, as per the postmortem report of deceased, 09 injuries were found present on her person. Therefore, in view of the same, this Court is not inclined to grant regular bail to the petitioner at this stage when the trial is progressing and out of the 30 witnesses cited, 16 stand examined while 06 witnesses have been dropped by the prosecution. The petition stands dismissed. However, the learned trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously.

4. It had been agitated by learned counsel for the petitioner that since as on dated out of 30 prosecution witnesses cited, 17 have been examined while 06 witnesses have been dropped by the prosecution and the trial is progressing at a very slow pace.

5. No new ground has been made out by learned counsel for the petitioner to entertain the third regular bail petition.

6. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. However, the trial Court is encouraged to conclude the trial expeditiously, preferably within a period of six months.

(KIRTI SINGH

01.12.2025 JUDGE Sima