IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM-M-30475 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on 05.10.2011 Rajdeep Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.P.S.Sullar.Advocate, for the petitioner Mr.J.S.Brar,A.A.G, Punjab Mr.J.S.Mehndiratta,Advocate,for the complainant RAKESH KUMAR JAIN,J: (ORAL) CRM-54414 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice in the case of co-accused Jasdeep Singh has been issued to the Advocate General, Punjab which is fixed for today. He submits that the I.O.has also come in that case, therefore, notice in this case be also issued to the Advocate General, Punjab for today as the matter can be disposed of with the aforesaid case because all the eye witnesses in this case have been examined and have resiled. Notice to Advocate General, Punjab. On the asking of the Court, Mr.J.S.Brar, AAG, Punjab,accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. This is a petition for regular bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No. 108 dated 07.10.2010, under Sections 302,148,149, CRM-M-30475 of 2011 (O&M) -2- 420, 468,471 of the IPC and 25/54/59 of Arms Act, at Police Station, Nehianwala. This case has been registered on the complaint of Varjinder Singh @ Jindi in respect of murder ofhis brother Hardarshan Singh @ Darshan Singh. Allegation in the FIR is that 3/4 young men who were in a car had fired upon his younger brother and killed him at the spot and ran away. It is submitted that the petitioner is in custody from 09.10.2010. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prosecution has examined four witnesses on 29.9.2011 and one PW Jaspal Singh was given up as having been won over. Statement of the complainant Varjinder Singh has been recorded as PW-2; Kulwant Singh as PW3 and Arvinderjit Singh as PW-4. Pws 2 and 3 are real brother of the deceased whereas PW-4 is his brother-in-law. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner deserves the concession of bail as none of the alleged eye witnesses referred to above have supported the case of the prosecution as they have failed to identify the accused who allegedly committed the crime. Mr.J.S.Mehndiratta, learned counsel for the complainant could not dispute the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner and has rather admitted that the prosecution has failed to prove their case before the trial Court on the basis of the eye witness account. Rest of the witnesses to be examined are official/formal as the entire case was based upon the statements of the aforesaid witnessews who have already been examined. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and keeping in view the fact that bail petition of Jasdeep Singh co-accused has been CRM-M-30475 of 2011 (O&M) -3- allowed by this Court by a separate detailed order of even date, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned CJM/Duty Magistrae, Bathinda. 05.10.2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge