CRM No.M-22773 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-29.9.2010 Sikander Singh son of Bawa Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.S.K.Sandhir, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Sikander Singh son of Bawa Singh, has directed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co- accused, namely, Varinder Kaur, vide FIR No.190 dated 14.10.2008, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. According to the prosecution that on the night intervening 13/14.10.2008, Shamsher Singh (deceased) had gone out of his house to bring liquor. In the wake of search by complainant Surjit Kaur and her grand-daughter, he was found in an injured condition. Initially, the prosecution claimed that some unknown persons were stated to have caused injuries on the head of Shamsher Singh. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant Surjit Kaur, mother of the deceased, initially, the present case was registered against some unknown persons. During the course of investigation, it revealed that the present petitioner caused injuries to the deceased, owing to his CRM No.M-22773 of 2010 2 illicit relations with his (deceased) wife, namely, Varinder Kaur. 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 accepted in this context. 5. It is not a matter of dispute that there is no direct evidence against the petitioner. The case of the prosecution revolves around the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner before one Jaswinder Singh Sandhu and the recovery of weapon of offence. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence of the prosecution would be complete, will be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial. Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 28.10.2008 and since then he is in judicial custody. His name was not mentioned in the FIR. He is no longer required to be further detained in jail. The conclusion of the trial will naturally take long time. Moreover, there is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any criminal case. 6. So, taking into consideration the totality of the 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 instant 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. 29.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge