Crl.Misc.No.M-22924 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-10.9.2010 Sanjay son of Fakira Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.R.S.Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr.Gautam Dutt, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Vikas Malik, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having lost his right of bail in the Court of Session, the petitioner Sanjay son of Fakira Singh has directed the present petition for regular bail in a case registered against him alongwith his other co-accused, namely, Manoj and Shahid, vide FIR No.118 dated 15.3.2010, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 302 and 120-B IPC by the police of Police Station Camp Palwal, District Palwal, 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 petitioner is entitled to regular bail. 4. It is not a matter of dispute that name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR, which was recorded on the statement of Nirmala alias Pinki complainant. It was described therein that some unknown person murdered her husband. The inquest proceedings were conducted under section 174 Cr.PC in the presence of witnesses including Jaibir, brother of the deceased. No body raised any Crl.Misc.No.M-22924 of 2010 2 accusing finger against the accused till then. The case of the prosecution entirely revolves around the circumstantial evidence. Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence of the prosecution is complete, would be a moot point, to be decided by the trial Court, during the course of trial of the case. The prosecution is mainly relying upon the confession of the petitioner before the police. The petitioner is in judicial custody and is no longer required for any purpose. There is no likelihood of the trial being concluded earlier. 5. Therefore, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted. 6. 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/surety bonds to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/or in his absence, Duty Magistrate, Palwal. 7. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. 10.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge