CRM No.M-22236 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-27.9.2010 Rakesh Kumar son of Jai Kishan ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Ms.Neelofer Abida Perveen, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G.Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Rakesh Kumar son of Jai Kishan, has directed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him, vide FIR No.15 dated 1.4.2009, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 302 IPC by the police of Police Station Laduwal, Distt.Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. The prosecution claimed that on 31.3.2009, the petitioner committed the murder of his wife Sushila and made extra judicial confession before complainant Birender Shah and Yogesh Shah to that effect. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, in the manner described here-in-above. 3. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be allowed in this respect. CRM No.M-22236 of 2010 2 5. It is not a matter of dispute that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. The entire prosecution case revolves only on the evidence of extra judicial confessions. Whether such extra judicial confessions are sufficient to involve the petitioner in the commission of the indicated offence, will be the moot point to be decided at the time of trial. The petitioner was arrested on 1.4.2009 and since then he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required for further detention in jail. As only one PW has been examined by the prosecution, therefore, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take long time. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any such case. 6. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of evidence and totality of the other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case. 7. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court. 8. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 27.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge