Crl. Misc. No. M-35362 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-35362 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 25.1.2011 Amit Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Suvineet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Goripuria, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Rajesh Bansal, Advocate for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 302 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Kurukshetra, District GRP, Ambala Cantt, vide FIR No.74 dated 4th November, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that name of the petitioner did not figure in the final report submitted by the investigating agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C. According to him, the petitioner is not even remotely connected with the commission of crime and there is an effort to falsely implicate him in the same. He submits that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. Learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer. He submits that in the final report submitted by the investigating agency under Section 173 Cr.P.C., it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner Crl. Misc. No. M-35362 of 2010 2 had been kept as suspected accused and investigation against him was pending. According to him, statement of one Satbir was recorded on 11th November, 2010 wherein name of the petitioner figured. He submits that a separate FIR had been registered regarding resiling of Nitish Kumar and Ashwani from their statements. Learned State counsel further submits that custodial interrogation of the petitioner is necessary for taking the investigation to its logical end. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that FIR was registered on 4th November, 2009 due to death of one Amit at Railway Station, Nilokheri. The deceased was allegedly assaulted by 4/5 persons and repeatedly stabbed. Six stab wounds were found on his body. The investigating agency took up the investigation but filed challan only against Parveen in the first instance. The investigation qua rest of the accused remained pending. Even at present supplementary challan has not been submitted by the investigating agency regarding the pending investigation. In view of the fact that name of the petitioner has figured in the statement of one Satbir and investigation of the case is still underway, I am of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail. The petition is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 25.1.2011 'rajpal'