In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-667 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:25.3.2010 Sushil Kumar .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 31.7.2009 for the offence under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sajan Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that his son Sandeep Singh (deceased) left home on 28.7.2009 at 9.30 a.m. for his work at the Lottery Stall at Pathankot. He did not return home in the evening. The other son of the complainant, namely, Mukesh Singh received a message on his mobile telephone in which it was stated that for his death Kuldeep, Chandan and Sushil Kumar (petitioner) were responsible. According to the complainant his son Sandeep Singh (deceased) had earlier also told him that 2-3 boys were after him and had harassed him. The complainant along with his other family members were looking for his son Sandeep Singh. At around 11.00 a.m. on 31.7.2009, the complainant came to know that a dead body of a boy Cr. Misc. No.M-667 of 2010 [2] has been found from the Ferozepur Kalan Hydel river which was lying in the dead house at Pathankot. The complainant along with his other two sons, namely, Munish Singh and Mukesh Singh as also Rakesh Singh went to the dead house and found that the dead body was that of his son Sandeep Singh. The complainant had full doubt that his son Sandeep Singh had died on account of the harassment of Kuldeep, Chandan and Sushil (petitioner). The complainant left Munish Singh and Rakesh Singh at the dead house and along with Mukesh Singh were going to inform the Police that the Police met them on the way and the statement was recorded. The FIR in the case was initially registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. Thereafter, the complainant Sajan Singh gave a supplementary statement (Annexure-P.1) in which he stated that he had full belief that his son-Sandeep Singh had been murdered by Ashish Kapoor along with Kuldeep, Chandan and Sushil (petitioner). It is stated by the complainant that after his son had left home on 28.7.2009 he and his younger son Mukesh Singh on the next day went to the shop of Ashish Kapoor, owner of Kapoor Lottery Stall where Sandeep Singh had been working for the last six years. Ashish Kapoor, however, did not reply to the queries made by the complainant and Mukesh Singh. Earlier when the son of the complainant was late by ten minutes then the shop owner always inquired from them regarding his whereabouts. However, this time Ashish Kapoor only made one phone call to them and did not talk to them seriously regarding the fact that the son of the complainant was missing. On account of the firm belief of the complainant, the offence under Section 302 IPC had been added on the basis of supplementary statement (Annexure-P.1). In the post-mortem report (Annexure-P.4) there is no injury Cr. Misc. No.M-667 of 2010 [3] mentioned on the person of the deceased Sandeep Singh. The final cause of death, it is mentioned, is to be ascertained after getting the histopathology report and after Chemical Examiner's report. The Board of doctors after receiving the chemical examination report and the histopathology report, on 20.11.2009 (Annexure-P.5) came to the conclusion that the cause of death in this case was drowning. The prosecution is to establish its case. At this stage, the guilt of the accused cannot be said to be established. On the statement of the complainant initially the FIR was registered for the offences under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. Later, the offence under Section 302 IPC had been added. There is no eye witness to the occurrence; besides, the dead body of Sandeep Singh (deceased) is not shown to have been inflicted with any injury. The Board of doctors have given their opinion (Annexure-P.5) that the cause of death was due to drowning. In the facts and circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is granted the concession of bail. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Gurdaspur shall be admitted to bail. March 25, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*