IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -- CRM No. M 16116 of 2010 Date of decision: 08.09.2010 Dalip ........ Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .......Respondent(s) Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.- Present: Mr. S S Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab for the respondent State -.- 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest? Nirmaljit Kaur, J. (Oral) It is not disputed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. It is also admitted by learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sucha Singh that only Jassa, Maurha and Virsa were named in the FIR and during investigation, Maurha and Virsa were found innocent and they have been summoned under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and were released on anticipatory bail. Whereas, the present petitioner has been enroped on the basis of extra-judicial confession made before Puran Bhatti. The said Puran Bhatti has been given up as not necessary. Moreover, the eye witnesses PW2 Darshan Singh and PW3 - Saraj Sigh have not even named the petitioner in their statement before the Court. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ferozepur. (Nirmaljit Kaur) Judge September 08,2010 mohan