Criminal Misc.-M No. 13252 of 2011 (1) IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc.-M No. 13252 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 22.11.2011 Malkiat Singh ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. B. S. Goraya, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K. S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. RAJESH BINDAL, J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in FIR No. 11 dated 15.5.2010, registered under Sections 302, 34 IPC and 2 (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, at Police Station Tarsikka, District Amritsar (Rural). Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 17.5.2010. In the FIR, the petitioner has not been named as an accused. It is alleged in the FIR that two young men attacked the brother of the complainant with dang and iron rod, who died because of multiple injuries. The complainant in the FIR is the brother of the deceased. The alleged incident took place on 15.05.2010 at about 8.30 P.M. when the complainant as well as his deceased brother were closing his shop and preparing to go back home. Supplementary statements of the complainant and Titu, another brother of the accused, were recorded at about 1.00 A.M. in the midnight between 15/16.05.2010. The complainant did not name the petitioner as one of the accused, whereas Titu in his statement stated that at about 8.45 P.M. when he was returning home from village Kotkhera, where Criminal Misc.-M No. 13252 of 2011 (2) he had gone for some work on his cycle, he stopped his cycle on the way to answer the nature's call. While he was sitting on the river side, Satnam Singh, Jugraj Singh and Malkiat Singh passed by and he over-heard them talking that they had caused injuries to Manohar Lal. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that it is stated by the complainant in the FIR that he along with his brother Titu was present when the shop was being closed at about 8.30 P.M. The assailants had caused injuries to Manohar Lal in his presence. The complainant had left the place to inform the police leaving Titu at the spot where the dead body was lying. There is no question of his being present at other place where he allegedly overheard some persons talking about murder of Manohar Lal at about 8.45 p.m. The story is concocted. Even otherwise had this been so, Titu would have informed this fact to his brother, which would have been part of the FIR or the supplementary statement of the complainant recorded subsequently. Till date, no prosecution evidence has been led. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioner was arrested after recording of statement of the brother of the deceased, who over heard the petitioner along with the accused admitting commission of crime in the present case. The brother of the deceased had gone to village Kotkhera. While he was returning back, he parked his cycle on the side of river to answer nature’s call at about 8.45 p.m., where he over- heard the petitioner and other accused talking about the murder of his brother. Considering the seriousness of the offence, the petitioner does not deserve concession of bail. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and considering the fact that Titu is shown to be present at the place of occurrence, which took place at about 8.30 P.M., the complainant in the FIR, namely brother of the deceased had stated that he had gone to inform the police by leaving Titu near the dead-body at about 8.30 p.m. whereas on the other side in his supplementary statement Titu claimed that he overheard the petitioner and other accused talking about the murder of his brother Manohar Lal; it was thereafter that he reached at his shop where the dead body of his brother was lying but still this is not the part of the FIR or the supplementary statement of Criminal Misc.-M No. 13252 of 2011 (3) the complainant, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves concession of bail pending trial. The petitioner is directed to be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Duty Magistrate, Amritsar. The petition stands disposed of. 22.11.2011 ( Rajesh Bindal ) vs Judge