IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24107 of 2008 Date of Decision: November 07, 2008 Kuldeep @ Nihale … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D. ANAND Present : Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. S.S.Mor, Sr. DAG, Haryana. *** S.D. Anand, J. Concededly, the petitioner is handicapped to the extent of 75%. Though the petitioner is averred to have caused a brick blow on the head of the deceased and he did make a disclosure statement as well but nothing came to be recovered in pursuance thereof. The argument raised thereby is that disclosure statement aforementioned would not, in any case, be admissible in evidence under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Without expression of any opinion on the merits, the petition shall stand allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate concerned. Disposed of accordingly. November 07, 2008 ( S.D. Anand ) Pka Judge