Crl. Misc. No.M-20619 of 2011 (O&M). IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-20619 of 2011 (O&M). Date of decision: November 04, 2011. Sehdev and another .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.S.S.Narula, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.J.K.Verma, Advocate, for the complainant. Ms.Sushma Chopra, Addl. A.G., Haryana. M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Petitioners Sehdev and Subhash sons of Ram Singh were on regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Ram Dei their mother alleging that Ram Singh was fired at and murdered by his grandson Manoj son of Sehdev while undergoing sentence in a murder case. The allegations against the petitioners as levelled by their mother complainant is that petitioner No.2, his son and wife used to supply information to Manoj and petitioner No.1, Sehdev regarding whereabouts of the deceased in order to facilitate the murder of Ram Singh. Counsel for the complainant has intervened to . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-20619 of 2011 (O&M). contend that Ram Singh had lodged complaint against his sons that they wanted to kill him for property. During the course of arguments, it has been informed that the petitioner No.1, Sehdev, the father of main accused Manoj has expired and Manoj who was earlier a proclaimed offender stands arrested. The allegations levelled by Ram Dei complainant that petitioner No.2 Subhash, his wife and son used to supply information regarding the whereabouts of the deceased and his family members, at this stage, has partly been disbelieved during investigation a son and wife of petitioner No.2, stand exonerated during the course of investigation. It would be debatable during trial whether the general allegations of complaint regarding the supply of information regarding the whereabouts of the deceased by his one son to another son would constitute an important link in the chain of circumstances which have been alleged to be existing against petitioner No.2 to arrive at a conclusion that petitioner No.2 had conspired with the main accused Manoj. No observation is made regarding the conduct of Sehdev, since petitioner No.1 has expired and the petition has become infructuous against him, petitioner No.2, in above circumstances can be granted the concession of bail. The petition is allowed. Subhash petitioner No.2, is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of ` 50,000/- with one surety of like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court with an additional condition that the petitioner will not . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-20619 of 2011 (O&M). make any attempt to tamper with the evidence or to threaten or win over the prosecution witnesses on account of his relationship with the complainant. In case of any such attempt, it will be open to the complainant or the prosecution agency to seek the cancellation of bail. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 04, 2011. rka . . . 3