In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-8868 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:23.8.2010 Surender Singh alias Surender Geong .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C. Gupta, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 8.12.2005 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 353, 186, 323, 34 and 120-B Indian Penal Code as also Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Jai Pal Head Constable. It is stated by Jai Pal Head Constable that he is posted in Police Lines, Kurukshetra. In the morning of 8.12.2005 he along with EHC Rakesh Kumar, EHC Harbans Lal and EHC Gurdev Singh had brought one accused Dilbag Singh alias Bagga (deceased) from Hissar jail to be produced in the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra in case FIR No. 90 dated 25.2.2005 registered at Police Station City, Thanesar for the offences under Sections 406, 420 and 382 IPC. After producing him in the Court, they proceeded in their journey in Bus No.HR-39A-8480 of the Hissar Depot from new Bus Stand Kurukshetra in order to take Dilbag Singh to Hissar Jail. At about 1.45 p.m. when the bus reached at Bus Stand Cr. Misc. No.M-8868 of 2010 [2] Pindarsi, at that time Dilbag Singh was sitting between EHC Harbans Lal and EHC Gurdev Singh on the three seats of the bus. The complainant Jai Pal and EHC Rakesh Kumar were sitting on the two seats of the Bus near to them. In the meantime, four boys armed with pistols in their hands suddenly stood behind the seat of Dilbag Singh and one of the said four boys fired shot at the head of Dilbag Singh. On this, the complainant Jai Pal, Head Constable got up and tried to catch him, then Dilbag Singh told them that they were Mintu son of Sukhbir, Sonu resident of Loni, Jita and Malik, who were the men of Surender Geong (petitioner) and Mintu had fired the shot on him. Then the complainant grappled with Mintu, in the meantime Sonu fired at him in order to free Mintu which hit on the right hand palm of the complainant. The complainant kept on catching hold of Mintu and Jita fired on his right hand thumb and Malik had shot at Dilbag Singh twice. The bullets hit Dilbag Singh on his head. Dilbag Singh then informed that the assailants were taking out their grudge as he had fired at Surender Geong at Kaithal and Mintu had escaped as Dilbagh Singh was then hit by a bullet. Thereafter, the accused fled away from the spot with their respective weapons. The complainant was busy looking after Dilbag Singh, but he died in the bus whereas his colleagues Rakesh Kumar, Harbans Lal and Gurdev Singh had chased the accused. The complainant was got admitted in the L.N.J.P. Hospital, Kurukshetra for treatment. The complainant had left the driver and conductor of the bus near the dead body of Dilbag Singh. The complainant became unconscious due to the injuries and the effect of the drugs and medicines that had been administered. On his regaining conscious he informed that Mintu, Sonu, Jita and Malik had Cr. Misc. No.M-8868 of 2010 [3] murdered Dilbag Singh and they had also caused hindrance in their official duties by opening the dangerous attack. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 8.5.2005 and he has been falsely implicated in this case. The incident occurred on 8.12.2005 and the petitioner had been in custody in another case much earlier to the date of the incident of 8.12.2005. It is submitted that there is no allegation of any conspiracy against the petitioner and there is nothing to show as to the conduct of the petitioner while he was n jail. The disclosure statement made by the petitioner and his co-accused Manjit Singh, it is stated, are inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is a habitual offender and involved in 29 other cases, the details of which is mentioned in the order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. It is submitted that the petitioner is involved on the basis of conspiracy which he hatched to kill Dilbag Singh. It is further submitted that the petitioner has made a disclosure statement; besides, his co-accused has made a disclosure statement. Even the deceased Dilbag Singh had informed the complainant EHC Jai Pal that the assailants were from the gang of the petitioner. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. The allegation of killing a person who was being taken to jail after production in Court is indeed serious. The question of conspiracy is to be established and proved during the trial of the case. However, at this stage, it cannot be Cr. Misc. No.M-8868 of 2010 [4] said that the same is not made out. The petitioner has admittedly made a disclosure statement which shows his involvement. Besides, the co-accused of the petitioner namely Manjit Singh has also made a disclosure statement which also shows his involvement. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the statement of the co-accused is not admissible in evidence is to be considered and gone into in the context of Section 30 of the Evidence Act which provides for consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence. It is provided therein that when more persons than one are being tried jointly for the same offence, and a confession made by one of such persons affecting himself and some other of such persons is proved, the Court may take into consideration such confession as against such other person as well as against the person who makes such confession. Therefore, the statement of co-accused Manjit Singh is to be considered by the trial Court after evidence has been led. The petitioner indeed is involved in several other cases, the details of which has been mentioned in the order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure-P.1) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra. The case is under-trial in the trial Court. In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous is accordingly is dismissed. August 23, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*