Crl. Misc. Nos.M-11219 & 11220 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Crl. Misc. No.M-11219 of 2009 Date of decision:08.07.2009. Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) Crl. Misc. No.M-11220 of 2009 Date of decision:08.07.2009. Satinder Kumar @ Rubbi ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G, Punjab, for the respondent – State. ***** AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL). Vide this order, I proposed to dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-11219 of 2009 titled as `Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhi Vs. State of Punjab' and Criminal Misc. No.M-11220 of 2009 titled as `Satinder Kumar @ Rubbi Vs. State of Punjab' as they arise out of the same FIR. Counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations against the petitioners although from the reading of the FIR appear to be serious, but the FIR was registered initially on the statement of Ravi Pal on 25.06.2008 wherein it has been stated by him that he Crl. Misc. Nos.M-11219 & 11220 of 2009 -2- alongwith Harvinder Singh was abducted by five hair cut young boys in an unnumbered Indica car and taken near the stadium, whereas in the supplementary statement, which has been made by Ravi Pal on 13.07.2008, the version has totally changed wherein he has stated that four clean shaven youth, two of them were riding Hero Honda motorcycle and other two came on foot, took them away by making them sitting on their motorcycle. It has further been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that an addition has been made in the FIR by further stating that he was dumped in a canal which does not find mention in the original FIR. All these things go to show that the involvement of the petitioners is doubtful. He further submits that the reason which has been given in the FIR for causing injuries by the petitioners was that one Shri Karamjit Singh suspected involvement of the complainant in the murder of his son. Counsel for the petitioners states that in a statement made in that murder case before the Trial Court, said Shri Karamjit Singh has specifically stated that Ravi Pal, the complainant in the present FIR, was not involved in the case of the murder of his son. He, on this basis, submits that the basis for which and reasons for which the injuries which were alleged to have been caused by the petitioners, have thus, been found to be not correct. The allegations cannot be supposed to be correct. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the case is now fixed for 14.07.2009. On an question being asked by the Court, the counsel for the State states that 17 witnesses have been named which have to be examined by the prosecution, out of which only one witness has been examined and that too examination in chief have been done and cross examination has been deferred. Crl. Misc. Nos.M-11219 & 11220 of 2009 -3- Counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the discrepancies which have been pointed out by him, the petitioner are in custody since 22.07.2008 and no useful purpose will be served by keeping them further in custody in view of the fact that Karamjit Singh has categorically stated in his statement before the Trial Court that the complainant Ravi Pal was not involved in the murder of his son. I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioners, which the counsel for the State is unable to rebut as is apparent from the record, and further keeping in view the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 22.07.2008 and only one witness has been examined in chief whereas his cross examination has been deferred, and 17 witnesses in all had to be examined, the trial cannot be said to have been made much progress and, therefore, is not likely to be completed soon. In view of the above and further that no useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in custody further, the applications of the petitioners are allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. Opinion expressed shall have no bearing on the trial on merits. July 08, 2009. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) vinod JUDGE