IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Criminal Misc. No.2105 -M of 2010 DATE OF DECISION : APRIL 5, 2010 NAVEEN ....... PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .... RESPONDENT(S) CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: Mr. Ravinder Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. Gaurav Dhir, DAG, Haryana. Mr. SR Hooda, Advocate, for the complainant. AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral) This petition under Section 439, Code of Criminal Procedure, has been filed for bail in case FIR No.214 dated 1.9.2008 under Sections 302, 364, Indian Penal Code, Police Station, Sampla, District Rohtak. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the FIR does not indicate commission of offence under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to analyse the statements of the prosecution witnesses, already examined before the trial court. I have considered the contentions. The FIR was lodged on the statement of Satpal son of Chander Bhan, who is uncle of deceased-Ravinder. As per the FIR, Ravinder was Criminal Misc. No.2105 -M of 2010 2 coming back from the School and had boarded the vehicle of petitioner- Naveen. When he did not return home, the petitioner was questioned. The petitioner, however, did not inform the family about the whereabouts of Ravinder. Apprehending that the petitioner had hidden Ravinder somewhere, the FIR was lodged. Learned counsel for the respondent-State, on instructions from ASI Ram Karan, has informed the court that it was on the pointing out of the petitioner that body of Ravinder could be recovered from underground, after digging for about 8 feet in the fields of the petitioner. Even the bag of deceased-Ravinder could be recovered at the instance of the petitioner. In view of the evidence that has come on the record, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case of mere circumstantial evidence cannot be accepted. So far as detailed examination of statements of the prosecution witnesses is concerned, it would be for the trial court to go into each fact, in detail, and decipher evidence to consider whether it is reliable and trustworthy or not. No ground for grant of bail, in view of the nature of offence and recoveries effected on the pointing out of the petitioner, is made out. The petition is dismissed. April 5, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?