Crl.M.No.M-2587 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-2587 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: April 1, 2010 Lakhwinder Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab ......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate and Mr.Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.32, dated 21.3.2009, under Sections 302/201/364/ 404/120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Dhuri (Sangrur). I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is delay of about ten days in lodging the FIR. It is further contended that it is a case of suicide and that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case. It has further been contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody for the last about one year. It is further argued that there was no motive for the petitioner to have committed murder of deceased as co- accused was allegedly having illicit relations with wife of the deceased. Bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned State counsel on the plea that as per the post-mortem report, the plea of suicide is totally ruled out, as deceased died due to poisoning, which is ante mortem and that even no water was found in the lungs. It is further contended that no external injuries also could be seen as the body was recovered after about 10-11 days and the same was totally putrefied. It is further argued that Crl.M.No.M-2587 of 2010 (O&M) -2- petitioner-accused alongwith co-accused were seen with the deceased by Harpreet Singh. It is further argued that accused also made extra-judicial confession of their guilt. It is further argued that four of the witnesses have already been examined and the next date fixed is 2.4.2010, and trial can be expedited and hence, it is argued that in view of serious allegations against the petitioner-accused, he is not entitled for bail. I have considered all the facts of the case. The allegations against the petitioner-accused are serious in nature. Four witnesses have already been examined and the trial can be expedited. Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that petitioner-accused is not entitled for bail. Hence the present petition filed by petitioner- Lakhwinder Singh for grant of bail is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as petitioner-accused has been continuing in custody for the last about one year. 1.4.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge