Crl.Misc.No.M-37014 of 2009 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-37014 of 2009 (O&M) Decided on: May 07, 2010. Pardeep Singh alias Baboo .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Tek Chand Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Jaspreet Singh, AAG, Punjab. Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner seeks the concession of bail pending trial in a case registered at the instance of Sarabjit Kaur alleging that her husband Ranjit Singh who had left the house on 26.01.2009, was murdered by some unknown persons. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-37014 of 2009 (O&M) petitioner has been falsely implicated and that there is no direct evidence against him. Counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the circumstantial evidence alleged against the petitioner in the shape of statement of Piara Singh who had last seen the deceased in the company of the petitioner and two others. There is another evidence of extra judicial confession made by the petitioner along with others before PW Sukhdev Singh. Counsel for the petitioner has tried to convince this Court that the circumstantial evidence produced before the Court is not sufficient enough to warrant conviction as it is incomplete and does not complete the chain on the basis of which the Court could arrive at conclusion that it is the petitioner and none else who is responsible for the murder of deceased Ranjit Singh. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner and verified the status of the trial. It has been informed that out of 11 witnesses 9 have already been examined and two are yet to be cross-examined. The weight of circumstantial evidence on appreciation, at this stage, cannot be determined by this Court by referring to the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses Piara Singh and Sukhdev Singh. Such an exercise would tantamount to an expression of opinion, at this stage. The appreciation of the testimony of above said two witnesses has intentionally been avoided lest it should cause prejudice to the petitioner or the prosecution agency at the time of final adjudication. . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-37014 of 2009 (O&M) Taking into consideration the totality of the circumstances including the circumstance that the remaining circumstantial evidence regarding recovery is yet to be led, I deem it appropriate, in the interest of justice, to order that the statements of prosecution witnesses be recorded within a period of six months after the next date of hearing by the trial Court. In case the trial is not concluded within the said period, it will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again for the concession of bail. Registry is directed to communicate a copy of the order to the trial Court through FAX. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE May 07, 2010. rka . . . 3