CRM No.M-24186 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.10.2010 Sunil alias Sonu son of Beer Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr.Ajay Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Tarun Aggarwal, Sr.DAG Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Addl.Sessions Judge, petitioner Sunil alias Sonu son of Beer Singh, has directed the present petition for regular bail in a case, registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Shyam Singh Pehalwan and Sanjay Kumar, vide FIR No.17 dated 22.1.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 147, 302, 307, 325 and 120-B read with section 149 IPC by the Police of Police Station Model Town, Rewari, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. 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 respect. 4. It is not a matter of dispute that the story put forth by complainant Hari Om in the FIR was found to be totally false and fabricated by the police. The prosecution claimed that during the course of interrogation, the main accused Shyam Singh Pehalwan suffered a disclosure statement to the effect that they, CRM No.M-24186 of 2010 2 including the petitioner, hatched a criminal conspiracy to murder Rattan Lal (deceased). There is no direct evidence against the petitioner except his disclosure statement as well as disclosure statement of his co-accused Shyam Singh Pehalwan. What is not disputed here is that even nothing was recovered from the petitioner in pursuance of his disclosure statement. What is evidentiary value of the disclosure statements without any recovery, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial of the case. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioner in any other criminal case. He was arrested on 10.2.2010 and since then he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required to be further detained in jail for any purpose. As even not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution till today, therefore, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. Therefore, taking into consideration the nature of evidence (disclosure statements) and totality of 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 instant case. 5. 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. 6. Needless to state that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition. 7. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 26.10.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge