Crl. Misc. No. M-13738 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-13738 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 02, 2009 Pardeep .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. A. P. S. Deol, Senior Advocate with Mr. Sushil Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Pardeep has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 271 dated 17.12.2007, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and under Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Sadar, District Sonepat. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. According to prosecution version, a week before the occurrence, there was some quarrel between Bintu deceased and the petitioner. Petitioner's brother Amarjit went to the house of the deceased Crl. Misc. No. M-13738 of 2009 2 and asked his family members that Bintu should mend his ways, failing which he would be shot. A week thereafter, Bintu was murdered. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Vinod and Naveen were witnesses of having last seen the petitioner with the deceased, but Vinod as PW-3 has turned hostile vide statement Annexure P-1, whereas Naveen has been given up as won over by the accused-petitioner. It is also contended that the petitioner and his brother Amarjit and the deceased were allegedly last seen riding the motorcycle of one Yashvir, but Yashvir as PW-8, vide his statement Annexure P-2, has stated that he never lent his motorcycle to anybody including the petitioner and has thus not supported the prosecution case. Recovery of a pistol with an empty cartridge therein was allegedly made at the instance of the petitioner on 30.12.2007 i.e. two weeks after the occurrence and the same has not been linked with the crime. It is also contended that the petitioner is in custody since 27.12.2007 i.e. for the last more than 1½ years. It is further pointed out that even the complainant Anil @ Leelu (real brother of the deceased), although while appearing in the witness-box stated about the aforesaid motive, has later on given an affidavit Annexure P-3 exculpating the petitioner. This factual position is not controverted by learned State counsel after seeking instructions from ASI Dinesh Kumar. However, learned State counsel pointed out that averment of the complainant in the affidavit Annexure P-3 that he gave statement in the Court under police pressure, cannot be taken at its face value as the police had no motive to implicate the petitioner falsely. This contention may have force, but furnishing of this affidavit by the complainant does prima facie indicate that there is some sort of compromise between the complainant party and the accused-petitioner. In view of above mentioned circumstances, but without Crl. Misc. No. M-13738 of 2009 3 meaning to comment anything on merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. The petitioner be released on bail on furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Sonepat. July 02, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE