In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM M 19086 of 2008 ((O&M) Decided on July 13,2009. Ramesh Kumar and another -- Petitioners vs. Raghuvir Singh --Respondent Present: Mr.J.S.Bedi, Advocate,for the petitioners Mr.Navdeep Chhabra,Advocate,for the respondent Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: Four petitioners have filed this anticipatory bail in a complaint case No. RT 134 dated 25.7.2003 titled as Raghvir Singh vs. Jaspal Singh and others filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muktsar under Section 302/201/34of IPC at Police Station, Sadar Muktsar, in which they have been summoned by the Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Muktsar, vide his order dated 15.3.2005. Before coming to this Court, the petitioners had filed anticipatory bail applications Nos. 145 and 159 of 2.7.2008 before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Muktsar, which were dismissed vide his order dated 18.7.2008. The allegations levelled by the complainant against the accused are that the Netarpal (since deceased) was his brother who was employed in the agriculture farm of the accused on contract basis at the annual salary of Rs.25,000/-which he used to deposit with them. When he asked for his salary, then accused Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith accused Nos. 3 and 4 caused the death of Netarpal and cremated his dead body before he could reach. In this manner, accused Nos. 3 and 4 helped accused Nos. 1 and 2 and CRM M 19086 of 2008 ((O&M) -2- caused disappearance of evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that in the Rapat Roznamcha No.27 dated 25.3.2003 got recorded by Ramesh Kumar son of Sohan Lal, it is alleged that he and Netarpal were working in the farm of the accused and were spraying pesticide on the plants of Kinnus and Orange. After some time, Netarpal started feeling giddiness and said that it could be due to influence of pesticides. Thereafter, he was removed to the hospital, where he expired. At that time, Ramesh Kumar had stated that he had no suspicion against any one regarding the death of Netarpal. It is also submitted that according to the supplementary post mortem report, Haloperidol drug was detected in the viscera of the deceased which can cause cardiac respiratory arrest. He further submitted that there is absolutely no evidence that the petitioners had forcibly fed the said drug to the deceased, therefore, the petitioners were summoned by the Court below only on the basis of suspicion as the allegations have been made that in order to avoid the payment due to the deceased, he had been murdered by the petitioners. As against this, learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that he has filed Crl. Misc.No. 24706 of 2009 in order to place on record the statement of Dr. Sukhpal Singh, Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Muktsar (CW2) which has been allowed on 15.5.2009. It is submitted by him that said witness (CW2) stated as under:- “The Haloperidol drug was detected in the viscera. Exh. P2 is attested photocopy of examination report. Haloperidol is commonly used for the treatment of convulsions. The toxic dose of this drug can lead to CRM M 19086 of 2008 ((O&M) -3- death. The drug is available in the form of tabs and injections. The level of the Haloperidol can not be declared on the basis of the report received by the chemical examiner. This medicine can be used in cases of poisoning leading convulsions”. Learned counsel for the respondent/State has thus submitted that the statement of Ramesh Kumar petitioner No.1 cannot be believed at this stage, who had lodged the report on 25.3.2003 that the deceased had told him that he is suffering from giddiness due to the influence of pesticides which he was spraying on the kinnus and oranges because Haloperido drug has been detected in the viscera of the deceased for which no explanation has been tendered by petitioner No.1, who himself has stated that he was with the deceased till the time he became unconscious and ultimately died. Thus keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of this case and without commenting on the merits thereof, I do not find it to be a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. Hence, the bail application is dismissed. July 13,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge