IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M-30932 of 2008 Date of decision : 12.1.2009. ... Dharmender ................ Petitioner vs. State of Haryana .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. J.V. Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. Neeraj Bhutani, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) As per allegation of the prosecution, one Vikram Singh was murdered by Anil and Bharat Singh. Sudesh s/o Chander, his brother Anup, Mainpal, Jaggi s/o Dungar and Ashok s/o Harchand were the conspirators and who supplied the weapon of offence including four mousers and two country made pistols to Anil and Bharat Singh, who actually murdered Vikram Singh. According to the prosecution, co- accused Anil and Bharat Singh made disclosure statement that petitioner is a conspirator in the said murder. In the statement of these co-accused Anil and Bharat Singh dated 20.5.2008, it is mentioned that petitioner was also present alongwith other co-accused when the said weapon of offence were given to Anil and Bharat Singh. Crl.M. No. M-30932 of 2008 -2- However, from the perusal of the statement of Anil and Bharat Singh dated 13.5.2008 and 18.5.2008, it is revealed that it is not mentioned that petitioner was present at the time of supplying of weapon of offence. Disclosure statement of Vinod s/o Kansi Ram was recorded, in which name of the petitioner is not mentioned while returning the weapon of offence to Sudesh, Mainpal, Anup, Jaggi and Ashok. Learned State counsel is fair enough to concede, on instructions from ASI Jagdish Rai, that except the disclosure statement made by Anil and Bharat Singh accused, there is no other statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner regarding conspiracy or handing over the weapon. So, without commenting upon the merits of the case, it is a fit case to allow the application. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurgaon. ( K.C. Puri ) 12.1.2009. Judge chug