Crl. Misc. No. M-1159 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No. M-1159 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision : 14.1.2011 Nawab Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. 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, 307, 452, 436, 380, 427, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Tripuri, District Patiala, vide FIR No.464 dated 25th December, 2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that no evidence has come on record to connect the petitioner with the alleged murder. The petitioner is in custody since 26th February, 2010 and thus, no useful purpose will be served by detaining him in custody during the pendency of trial. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The FIR was lodged on statement of one Daljit Kaur, who stated that on 25th December, 2009, she was cooking meal in her house and her daughter was in store. At that time, 7/8 boys armed with swords etc. entered her house. One of the accused sprinkled petrol on her and another set her on fire. One of the accused also sprinkled petrol in Crl. Misc. No. M-1159 of 2011 2 various places of house. They looted her house by stealing Rs.6.00 lacs and gold ornaments. Thereafter, all the accused fled away from the scene in cars and motor cycles. Daljit Kaur was taken to Amar Hospital where she made the statement. She later expired on 2nd January, 2010. The petitioner moved the trial court for regular bail. The same was, however, dismissed vide impugned order dated 6th September, 2010. The trial court dismissed the bail application observing that allegations against the petitioner were very serious and material witnesses were yet to be examined. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel. He has referred to the evidence which has come on record till now and submitted that there is nothing to show that the petitioner is connected to the alleged crime. I am, however, not convinced with the arguments. The evidence, which has come on record, can be examined by the trial court at the stage of final arguments. Keeping in view the nature of crime committed, where complainant (deceased) was set on fire in front of her daughter after trespassing into their house, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to be enlarged on bail during the pendency of trial. This apart, trial court having come to the conclusion that the petitioner is likely to hamper the prosecution and influence the witnesses, I do not find it a fit case for grant of bail. The petition is devoid of merits and is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 14.1.2011 'rajpal'