Crl. Misc. No.M-9449 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. Crl. Misc. No.M-9449 of 2011 Mohit Kumar ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No.M-12902 of 2011 Manjit Kumar @ Jeeti ..... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr. R.K. Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in Crl. Misc. No.M-9449 of 2011) Mr. J.S. Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in Crl. Misc. No.M-12902 of 2011) Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. Mr. D.D. Sharma, Advocate. Date of Decision: 20.07.2011 M.M.S. BEDI, J. By this common order, Crl. Misc. No.M-9449 of 2011 titled as Mohit Kumar versus State of Punjab and Crl. Misc. No.M-12902 of 2011 titled as Manjit Kumar @ Jeeti versus State of Punjab shall be disposed of together. Petitioners Mohit Kumar and Manjit Kumar @ Jeeti have filed Crl. Misc. No.M-9449 of 2011 -2- two separate applications Crl. Misc. Nos.M-9449 & 12902 of 2011 respectively for the grant of regular bail in murder case which was registered at the instance of Madhu Sudan alleging that while he was following the car of Sudershan Singh Dhillon on the date of occurrence at about 10.40 AM a Scorpio black colour car occupied by five young persons stopped the car in front of that of the car of Sudershan Singh Dhillon. Four young persons alighted from the Scorpio car. Out of whom two had pistols and two were armed with Datars. One young person with datar gave blow with datar on the roof of the front door of the driver side and second blow was given on the front glass. The second young person with datar gave a blow on the glass of front door on the left side as a result of which glass was broken. When Sudershan Singh Dhillon took out his licenced pistol to save him and tried to get out of the door of the driver side, young person with pistol fired hit him on the right side of the stomach and right flank. Then Sudershan Singh Dhillon fell out of the car. The young person gave datar blows on the person of Sudershan Singh Dhillon hit him on the back side of the head. Taking Sudershan Singh Dhillon as dead, all the four persons sitting in the scorpio car left while raising lalkara saying that work of Bobby and Dara has been done. Sudershan Singh Dhillon was taken to Gandhi Hospital but he died on the way. Dead body was taken to Civil Hospital Phagwara. Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and his presence on the spot is not indicated as per the complainant. Besides this, no direct evidence is available on the record. The only evidence which has been gathered by the prosecution agency is that of Crl. Misc. No.M-9449 of 2011 -3- Balbir Singh who had allegedly overheard the accused talking at a tea stall regarding the old enmity which can only be considered as a hearsay evidence with no value in the eyes of law. The evidence of Mohit Kumar having made extra judicial confession that he collected 40 live cartridges at the instance of Manjit Kumar also not sufficient to connect the petitioner with the occurrence. Statement of co-accused Mohit Kumar will not be admissible in evidence. An extra judicial confession before Sanjay Kumar is alleged to have been made by the abovesaid petitioner. He being a political personality will not inspire any confidence if he appears against the petitioner to establish the extra judicial confession. So far as Mohit Kumar is concerned, his counsel Mr. Gupta has alleged that the persons who had fired pistol and given datar blows have been specifically named as Jatinder, Ajay Joshi, Sukhbir, Maninder and Manjit Singh. The petitioner is alleged to have made available cartridges to Manjit Kumar as such he is alleged to have conspired in the murder of Sudershan Singh Dhillon. I have considered the contention of Mr. Bhatia, counsel for the petitioner Manjit Kumar and Mr. R.K. Gupta, counsel for the petitioner Mohit Kumar and considered the relevant material available on the police file. This happens to be the third petition for bail filed by Mohit Kumar and second petition filed by Manjit Kumar. As per the case of the prosecution, the motive attributed to the accused in the death of Sudershan Singh Dhillon is that through the hired assassin Bobby, Dara and others had, on account of old rivalry the murder has been committed. It will be premature at this stage to consider the strength of the prosecution evidence which has been gathered in the shape of motive, extra judicial confession of conspiracy and Crl. Misc. No.M-9449 of 2011 -4- recovery in context to the provisions of Section 10 of the Evidence Act and other provisions of law regarding the admissibility. The chances of tampering with the evidence cannot be ruled out as the prosecution has alleged that through the professional hired persons, Sudershan Singh Dhillon has been assassinated. Similarly the part attributed to Mohit Kumar cannot be said to be insignificant at this stage as prima facie he appears to be connected in the chain of events, having been instrumental in arranging and providing cartridges to the main accused. In view of the above circumstances, no ground is made out to grant the concession of bail by entering into the niceties of the trial. Dismissed. (M.M.S. BEDI) 20.07.2011 JUDGE manju