CRM No.M-31771 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-31771 of 2010 Date of Decision:16.11.2010 Karan Singh @ Karni ......Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) By invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C., petitioner-Karan Singh @ Karni, has applied for the grant of regular bail in a case initially registered against the accused, namely, Daljit Singh @ Taini, Dr.Chhinda, Mithu Singh and an unknown person, vide FIR No.61 dated 28.07.2009, for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 302, 34, 120-B IPC read with Section 25 of the Arms Act and Section 16(1) of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 2008, by the police of Police Station Sadar Mansa. 2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 3. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable assistance and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 4. What is not disputed here is that in the wake of complaint of complainant-Bali Singh, the present case was registered against the above-named four accused, for the commission of murder of Lilly Kumar, deceased. Subsequently, the complainant took a somersault, completely changed the version CRM No.M-31771 of 2010 2 and made a supplementary statement on 03.08.2009, involving the other set of accused, namely, petitioner-Karan Singh @ Karni, Amrit Pal Singh, Gamdoor Singh, Raj Singh, Binder Singh, Makhan Singh, Gurvir Singh and Gurdeep Singh @ Raju etc. (exonerating the original named indicated four accused). That means, the complainant did not originally name the petitioner as an accused and he was subsequently involved on the basis of his supplementary statement. 5. Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court framed the charges against the petitioner and his other co-accused and the case was slated for evidence of the prosecution. Complainant-Bali Singh appeared as PW1, whereby, he totally resiled in the court from his supplementary statement, involving the petitioner and his other co-accused and again reiterated that the original set of the four accused, namely, Daljit Singh @ Taini, Dr.Chhinda, Mithu Singh and an unknown person committed the murder of his brother Lilly Kumar, which necessitated the prosecution to move an application for summoning the original set of the accused under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Consequently, the trial Judge summoned the original set of the accused to face the trial for the indicated offences, by virtue of order dated 13.05.2010. The operative part of which is as under:- “Thus, exonerating the accused from commission of murder of Lilli on the other hand, he sticks to his previous statement recorded by the police which was basis of FIR and denied his supplementary statement being recorded by the police. In his previous statement recorded by the police as well as his statement made in the Court on oath, he specifically named accused Daljit Singh alias Taini son of Naranjan Singh, Dr.Chhinda son of Raghbir Singh and Mithu Singh son of Jodh Singh in the commission of offence, who committed the murder of his brother Lilli Kumar. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds to summon the above named persons as accused under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act and they are ordered to be summoned for 08.07.2010.” 6. Meaning thereby, the complainant has already exonerated the present petitioner and his other co-accused from the commission of crime in question. In CRM No.M-31771 of 2010 3 that eventuality, certainly the petitioner is entitled to the concession of regular bail. Moreover, the petitioner was arrested on 10.08.2009 and since then he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required to be detained in jail for any purpose. As the trial Judge has summoned another set of the accused in the wake of order under Section 319 Cr.P.C., therefore, the conclusion of the trial will naturally take a long time. 7. It is not a matter of dispute that Gurvir Singh and Gurdeep Singh @ Raju, co-accused of the petitioner, have already been allowed regular bail by this Court by virtue of order dated 21.09.2010(Annexure P-6), vide CRM No.M-7689 of 2010 and CRM No.M-13593 of 2010. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the case of the present petitioner-Karan Singh @ Karni is squarely identical to the cases of Gurvir Singh and Gurdeep Singh @ Raju, who have already been allowed bail by this Court vide order(Annexure P-6). Therefore, I do not see any reason not to extend the same benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner in the similar set of circumstances. 8. So, taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 9. In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 10. The instant petition is disposed of accordingly. November 16, 2010 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE