Crl. Misc. No.M-28931 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-28931 of 2011 Date of Decision: September 22, 2011 Raj Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Jitender Dhanda, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Anurag is alleged to have caused the murder of his cousin Somvir. The petitioner seeks the concession of pre-arrest bail in the said case as he has been involved in the case on the ground that he had instigated the main accused Anurag to cause the murder of his cousin to get the family property. PW Satbir is alleged to have heard the petitioner telling Anurag to commit the offence. Anurag is also alleged to have made a statement in Crl. Misc. No.M-28931 of 2011 [2] police custody that it was the petitioner who had instigated him to cause the murder. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the case on the basis of inadmissible evidence. I have taken into consideration the arguments of counsel for the petitioner. No doubt, the statement made by co-accused, that too in police custody is generally not admissible and the evidence of Satbir appears to be a week evidence regarding conspiracy but at the stage of investigation, it will be inappropriate for this Court to examine the statements of Anurag and Satbir to determine their relevancy in context to the provisions of Section 133 of the Evidence Act alongwith illustration of Sectin114 of Evidence Act and Section 25 of the Evidence Act, as it cannot be decided at this stage whether the said statements will be corroborated during the course of evidence. No extraordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. This order will not, in any manner, prejudice the rights of the petitioner to seek the concession of regular bail at an opportune time. September 22, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE