CRR No.2205 of 2002 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRR No.2205 of 2002 Date of Decision : 27.01.2011 Niranjan Singh …Petitioner Versus Mahinder and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI -.- Present: Mr. Surender Pal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Kapil Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.1 and 2. Ms. Shalini Attri, D.A.G., Haryana. *** AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed against the acquittal of the accused Mahinder and Nanha Ram. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that recovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosure statement of the co-accused as well as Mahinder- respondent No.1 was addicted to liquor and had strained relation with the deceased clearly reveals that the present was not a case for CRR No.2205 of 2002 -2- acquittal. Learned counsel for the respondents No.1 and 2 states that the story of disclosure is obviously false since the body was stated to have been recovered 9 days after the alleged murder from a running canal and from the same spot where it had been thrown which is highly unlikely. Learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2 have taken me not only through the judgment of the Court below but also through the evidence. As regards the accused respondent No.2- Nanha Ram, I find no infirmity in the order of the learned trial Court because even the complainant witnesses did not stick to the stand that he was present when the recovery was made. However, as regards the respondent No.1-Mahinder, the conscience of this Court is not satisfied that the matter had been viewed in the correct perspective and would have to be properly analysed. It is not for this Court to give its own opinion at this stage because that way prejudice may be caused to either of the parties. However, suffice it to say that the acquittal of accused-respondent No.1 deserves to be re- examined. In the circumstances, even while dismissing the revision against the respondent No.2 the petition is allowed qua respondent No.1 and the matter is remanded back to the learned trial Court for fresh decision. The respondent No.1 shall be admitted to bail during CRR No.2205 of 2002 -3- the pendency of these fresh proceedings to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. For this purpose, the learned trial Court shall issue fresh notice to respondent No.1 so that he can appear and furnish his bail bonds. The record of the case be also sent to the learned trial Court. The next date before the learned trial Court is fixed for 19.04.2011. ( AJAY TEWARI ) January 27, 2011 JUDGE ashish