CRM No. M-7116 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-7116 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 22.10.2009 Raman Chalotra ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Rajan Gupta, J (oral). This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 302 IPC at Police Station Sadar, Kapurthala, vide FIR No.180 dated 25th November, 2007. The allegations in the FIR are that Rajan Sharma, brother of deceased Rajesh Kumar, who was doing the work of property dealing and financing, had relations with Jagdish alias Baba Budhian, Mithu and Surjit Singh due to business of property dealing. Jagdish and Mithu owed money to brother of the complainant. On 24.11.2007 at 6.00 P.M., Rajesh Kumar, took an amount of Rs.300/- from Rajan Sharma and left the house by saying that he had been called by his friends and Jagdish would get back his money in case he is served liquor. Thereafter, he left to meet Jagdish. Since he did not come back for quite some time, the complainant alongwith other persons searched for him. However, dead-body of Rajesh was found on the road between Kala Sanghian and Sandhu Chatha with injuries on head and other parts of CRM No. M-7116 of 2009 2 body. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused had conspired to kill the deceased. On the basis of the same, accused was arrested. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that there is no evidence to connect the petitioner with the crime. Moreover, the petitioner has been behind bars since 27th November, 2007 and thus, deserves to be enlarged on bail. The prayer for bail has been opposed by the learned State counsel. He has submitted that out of fifteen prosecution witnesses, ten have already been examined and two have been given up. Only three witnesses remain to be examined. He has thus submitted that there is no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail at a stage when trial is near its culmination. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. In view of the statement made by the State counsel, it is obvious that most of the prosecution witnesses have been examined and the trial is at its final stage. Under the circumstances, I find no ground to enlarge the petitioner on bail. The prayer for bail at this stage is misconceived. The petition is, thus, dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 22, 2009 'rajpal'