Crl.M.No.32063-M of 2010 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.32063-M of 2010 Date of decision: 23.11.2010 Ramesh Kumar ....................Petitioners v. State of Haryana .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr. Anil Ghanghas, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl.A.G, Haryana for respondent Nos.1 to 5. Mr. S.S. Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.6-CBI. Jaswant Singh.J. Prayer under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.481 dated 21.9.2009 under Sections 21.9.2009 under Sections 307/34 IPC later on added Sections 302/148/149 IPC and Section 25/54/59 of the Arms Act. It is submitted that the petitioner has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of supplementary statement got recorded by Umed Singh, father of deceased Ram Chander, after a delay of three months. In the supplementary statement earlier version given by Umed Singh in the FIR has been totally Changed. It is further submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 25.5.2010 and challan in the present case has been presented. It is further stated that the custody of the petitioner is no longer required as no recovery is to be effected. Learned state counsel, on instructions from the police official present states that during investigation conducted by Hanuman Crl.M.No.32063-M of 2010 #2# Prasad, Inspector/SHO, statement of complainant-Umed Ram and one Sunita widow of deceased Ram Chander was recorded on 28.9.2009 wherein they have stated that death of Ram Chander has been caused by the bullet fired by Ramesh from his pistol. Learned state counsel further submits that fatal injuries have been attributed to the petitioner by using fire arm thereby causing death of deceased Ram Chander @ Bittu and said fire arm has been recovered from the petitioner. It is further pointed out that the petitioner is involved in two other criminal cases and in case he is released on bail, there is likelihood of tampering with the prosecution case. Without commenting upon the merits of the case and taking into account the gravity of the offence and the role ascribed to the petitioner and also the fact that the petitioner is having criminal background, I do not deem it appropriate to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. November 23, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE