CRM No. M-23451 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-23451 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 27.8.2009 Pardeep ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Rahul Vats, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. This is a petition for regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Murthal, District Sonepat, vide FIR No.115 dated 23rd June, 2008. The FIR was lodged on the complaint of Dalbir Singh. He stated that on 22nd June, 2008 at about 10.30 P.M., he had gone to take a round of his field. When he reached near his tubewell, he saw a dead- body of a young boy lying there smeared with blood. He went near the body and saw that the deceased had sustained a fire arm injury in the back. Dalbir Singh informed the Sarpanch. Thereafter, Chowkidars Chander Bhan and Ram Dhari also came at the spot. The investigation of the case began. A statements of Balwan Singh son of Daya Nand was recorded by the police under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He stated that on 22nd June, 2008 during noon hours, he had seen two youngsters, namely, CRM No. M-23451 of 2009 2 Rakesh alias Kala and Pardeep alias Chhotu (petitioner) near the residence of deceased Veer Bhan. These persons were having some kind of dispute with the deceased. Rakesh and Chhotu had again visited the house of Veer Bhan in the evening on the same day. They were last seen with the deceased. His dead-body was detected at 8.30 P.M. The recovery of the motor cycle used in the crime, was effected at the instance of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been implicated in the case merely on the basis of suspicion. There is no evidence to connect him with the crime and no useful purpose will be served by detaining the petitioner in custody during pendency of the trial. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. In the statement of Balwan Singh, it has been clearly stated that the petitioner and his co-accused had some dispute with the deceased and they had visited his place on the fateful day. They were last seen with him on the evening when the murder took place. Balwan Singh clearly stated to the police that Veer Bhan had been murdered by the petitioner and his co-accused. Thereafter, recovery of the motor cycle was also effected at the instance of the petitioner. Under the circumstances, I am of the considered view that there is no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The trial of the case is yet to proceed further. If enlarged on bail, the possibility of the CRM No. M-23451 of 2009 3 petitioner being escaped from the process of law, cannot be ruled out. The prayer for bail is, thus, devoid of merits. The same is hereby rejected and the present petition is dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE August 27, 2009 'rajpal'