CRM No. M-22888 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CRM No. M-22888 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 26.10.2009 Jagjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. D.S. Pheruman, 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, 201 read with Section 34 IPC at Police Station Beas, District Amritsar, vide FIR No.45 dated 23rd February, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that FIR was lodged on 23rd February, 2009 by grand father of deceased Gurpartap Singh. The police recorded statement (under Section 161 Cr.P.C.) of real brother of complainant Chanchal Singh on 24.2.2009, before whom the petitioner and co-accused made extra-judicial confession. On the basis of the same, the petitioner and co-accused were implicated. According to the counsel, the prosecution has no other evidence available against the petitioner except the extra-judicial confession made before Chanchal Singh, which cannot inspire any confidence. Learned counsel has also pointed out certain discrepancies in the extra- CRM No. M-22888 of 2009 2 judicial confession made before Chanchal Singh. Learned counsel for the State (on the instructions from ASI Balkar Singh, who is present in Court), on the other hand, has submitted that apart from extra-judicial confession made before Chanchal Singh, other evidence is available with the prosecution connecting the petitioner with the crime. According to the counsel, the dead-body of Gurpartap Singh, the six years old boy, was recovered from inside the haveli occupied by the petitioner and the co-accused. According to the counsel, at the instance of the petitioner, a bamboo stick was recovered, on which hair of the deceased were found. The said bamboo stick was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for opinion. According to the report, hair on the stick matched with that of the deceased. Learned State counsel has pointed out that motive of the crime was monetary. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. It appears that after the crime was committed, the investigating agency collected evidence and resorted to scientific methods as well. After having found material to show involvement of the petitioner in the crime, the trial against the petitioner and co-accused commenced. It is not possible for this court at this stage to observe anything regarding discrepancies, if any, in the prosecution evidence. The extra-judicial confession, which is stated to have been made before brother of the complainant, can also be considered by the trial court at CRM No. M-22888 of 2009 3 the appropriate stage. Other available evidence can also be examined only at the final stage of trial. Keeping in view heinous nature of the crime, the manner of its commission and punishment it would entail in the event of conviction, I do not find it a fit case for enlarging the petitioner on bail. The petition is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE October 26, 2009 'rajpal'