Crl.M.No.22568-M of 2010(O&M) #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M.No.22568-M of 2010(O&M) Date of Order: 7.9.2010 Neeraj .....Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Anil Kumar Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab. JASWANT SINGH, J (ORAL) Crl.M.No.40135 of 2010 Application is allowed as prayed for. Crl.M.No.22568-M of 2010 Prayer under Section 439 Cr.P.C is for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.6 dated 2.1.2007 under Section 302/34 IPC, P.S Focal Point, Ludhiana. It is stated that the complainant-Pawan Kumar had employed Gopal Bahadur as Security Guard in his factory and on the morning of 2.1.2007, his dead body was recovered from the factory premises. It appears that the petitioner while in police custody in another FIR No.202 dated 12.9.2007 under Sections 399/402 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act admitted in his confessional statement before the police that he along with his co-accused Ghaniya Ram, Anil and Sanjay Kumar had committed the murder of Gopal Bahadur on the intervening night of 1/2-1-2007 with a Crl.M.No.22568-M of 2010(O&M) #2# motive to commit theft. Learned counsel submits that this was a case of blind murder and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 15.9.2007 and all the co- accused have been granted the concession of bail. It is further submitted that besides the confessional statement before the police and a disclosure statement leading to recovery of dagger, there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime. Learned state counsel submits that the co-accused Anil was granted bail by this Court but he subsequently jumped the bail and has been declared as proclaimed offender. He, however, admits that besides the alleged recovery of dagger and the confessional statement made before the police, there is no other evidence connecting the petitioner to the crime. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that it is doubtful as to whether the confession of the commission of crime made by the petitioner before the police would be legally admissible into evidence. However, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case and in view of the fact that the trial of the case shall take long time to conclude, I find that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner in custody any longer. Accordingly, petitioner is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of the ld. Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana with one local surety. September 07, 2010 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE