CRM No.M-22369 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 8.11.2010 Neeraj Kumar son of Prem Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.PC, petitioner Neeraj Kumar son of Prem Singh, has directed the present petition for regular bail, in a case registered against him alongwith other co-accused, namely, Sandeep, Parveen alias Kala and Pardeep alias Bhagta, vide FIR No.54 dated 1.2.2009, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC and section 25 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Ganaur, District Sonepat. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the matter deeply, to my mind, the petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the instant case. 4. What is not disputed here is that Pardeep alias Bhagta, co-accused of the petitioner, has already been allowed regular bail by this court, vide order dated 17.9.2010 passed in CRM No.27681 of 2009. There is no direct evidence against the petitioner. It appears to be a case of blind murder and the petitioner was subsequently involved on the basis of disclosure statement of his co-accused CRM No.M-22369 of 2010 2 Parveen alias Kala. Nothing is recovered from the petitioner. According to the prosecution that Neeraj Kumar petitioner has only demarcated the place of occurrence. He was arrested on 7.7.2009 and since then, he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required to be further detained in jail for any purpose. The conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. 5. Since Pardeep alias Bhagta, co-accused of the petitioner, has already been allowed regular bail, so, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit to the petitioner. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as described here-in-above, to me, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 6. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 7. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 8.11.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge