IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 30727 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : February 26, 2009 Gurdeep Singh alias Deepa ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pritam Pal Present : Mr. SPS Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Vishal Munjal, DAG Punjab Mr. APS Deol, Sr. Advocate with Mr. DB Singh, Advocate for the complainant Pritam Pal,J. (Oral) Petitioner has brought this petition under section 439 of Code of Criminal Procedure for seeking regular bail in case FIR No. 116 dated 17.7.2008 under sections 304 IPC vide Rapat No. 4 dated 17.8.2008 registered at Police Station Nahianwala District Bathinda. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that according to the earliest version given by Kulwant Singh complainant on 17.7.2008, the petitioner was not named as an accused in this case wherein Surjit Singh had died on account of gun shot injury. In this first version, Pritam Singh son of Darbara Singh is alleged to have killed Surjit Singh. He further contends that later-on i.e. on 17.8.2008, a DDR was got recorded by one Criminal Misc. -M No. 30727 of 2008 (O&M) -2- Harbhagwan Singh wherein he stated that there was scuffle between Surjit Singh and petitioner Gurdeep Singh. In his version, it is stated that Surjit Singh was snatching the gun from petitioner Gurdeep Singh but the latter succeeded in firing at the deceased. It is also the third version that on 3.9.2008 Bir Devinder Singh real brother of the deceased had also filed a complaint case regarding the aforesaid incident wherein he did not level any allegation regarding killing of his brother against the petitioner. Not only that Kulwant Singh, the first informant/lodger of the FIR later-on also filed another complaint on 24.12.2008 wherein he again adhered to his earliest version vide which the FIR was lodged on 17.7.2008. It is also to add here that a cross case was also registered against Kulwant Singh, the first informant on the statement of Balwinder Singh alias Binder under sections 325 IPC etc. Ultimately, the police had filed this case against the petitioner only for commission of offence under section 304 IPC. The evidence in this case is yet to be recorded. It is also pertinent to mention here that learned counsel for the parties also state that the complaint cases, as narrated above, are still pending consideration after recording the preliminary evidence. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances as discussed above, I feel that the trial against the petitioner is likely to take a long time who is in custody since 17.8.2008. Not only that, it also appears that if the complainants succeed in getting the accused summoned in the complaint cases, then those cases will also be clubbed with the State case and it is further likely to take much time to conclude the evidence of this case. Criminal Misc. -M No. 30727 of 2008 (O&M) -3- In the given facts and circumstances and without commenting on the merits of this case, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court. Criminal Misc. is disposed of. ( Pritam Pal ) February 26 2009 Judge 'dalbir'