CRM-M-28824-2011 [ 1 ] ::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-28824-2011 Date of decision:23.12.2011 Aditya @ Nitti ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Rakesh Nehra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This is a petition for grant of regular bail in a pending trial case registered vide FIR No.365 dated 28.08.2010, under Sections 302, 449, 120-B, 218 IPC and 25/27/29B/30 of the Arms Act, 1959 at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak. The FIR is registered on the complaint of the petitioner who had alleged that his uncle Kalu (since deceased) had a separate residence. He was not having any issue. On 27.08.2010, at about 9.00 p.m., he along with Kuldeep went to the house of his uncle for the purpose of serving him food but, in the meantime, he heard two gun fire shots from his house. He immediately went inside and found that Krishan Kumar son of shiv Kumar @ Shibu had fired two gun shots on his uncle who was lying dead on the ground. He also alleged that the said occurrence took place because two days ago, the assailant had an altercation with his uncle over a money dispute. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is in custody since 01.01.2011. The challan in this case was presented and charge was framed much prior to his arrest which is the result of the statement of Dalbir Singh who had recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [for short CRM-M-28824-2011 [ 2 ] ::::::: “Cr.P.C.”] after a long time. He has further submitted that the allegation against the petitioner is of conspiracy for the purpose of usurping the land of the deceased who was issueless but the land of the deceased could not have devolved upon the petitioner alone, even if the deceased was eliminated. He has also submitted that the petitioner has been involved on the statement of co-accused and that an unexplained delay in recording of the statement of the witness of conspiracy renders the prosecution story unreliable. On the contrary, learned State Counsel has submitted that the deceased had made various complaints to the Chief Minister, Haryana, Deputy Commissioner and Superintendent of Police, Rohtak against the petitioner that he has been threatening him for his property. It is submitted that if the petitioner is released on bail at this stage, he is likely to influence the witnesses and temper with the evidence. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, but without making any observation on the merits, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of bail at this stage. Hence, the present petition is hereby dismissed. December 23, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE