Crl. Misc. No. M-19625 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-19625 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.7.2010 Balbir Singh alias Beera ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Sunny Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 364, 302, 201, 120-B IPC at Police Station City Mansa, District Mansa, vide FIR No.62 dated 17th March, 2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and there are material contradictions in the statements of the witnesses examined so far. The prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. He, therefore, submits that the petitioner deserves to be enlarged on bail. The FIR was lodged due to murder of one Amritpal Singh alias Mangu son of the complainant. He stated before the police that on 15th March, 2008 at about 5.30 P.M., Amritpal Singh alias Mangu had gone to buy certain household goods but he did not come back. His body was later recovered from the bushes in Dashmesh Public School, Crl. Misc. No. M-19625 of 2010 2 Mansa in a gunny bag on the disclosure statement of Ajaib Singh. During investigation, investigating agency found that son of the petitioner was stopped by certain persons including the petitioner, thrown into a vehicle and taken away. The motive of the crime is stated to be enmity of the petitioner with family of the complainant as he was earlier a tenant in their house and was asked to vacate the same. He later developed grudge towards son of the complainant. In view of the seriousness of allegations, the manner of commission of crime, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail. It cannot be opined at this stage whether the evidence available against the petitioner would lead to his conviction or not, therefore, the contention of counsel for the petitioner that the prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence, is without any force. Dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 23.7.2010 'rajpal'