Crl. Misc. No. M-15022 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-15022 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: May 27, 2010 Jai Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. GURDEV SINGH, J. Heard. This petition under Section 438 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as 'the Code') has been filed by Jai Kumar- petitioner for the grant of anticipatory bail in FIR No. 242 dated 5.9.2009 registered at Police Station Sadar, Dadri, District Bhiwani, under Section 306 IPC. According to him, he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. The FIR was got registered on the basis of the application given by the residents of the village Golagarh, Tehsil and District Bhiwani and the Gram Panchayat of that village regarding the commission of murder of Krishan son of Raldu Ram by Kamlesh. It was also narrated therein that previously an application regarding that murder was given to the SSP, Bhiwani, but no action was taken and thereafter Kamlesh and the present petitioner went missing from their house. Though the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC were made out, yet the FIR was registered only under Section Crl. Misc. No. M-15022 of 2010 2 306/34 IPC. When asked from the State counsel as to what type of evidence has been collected against the petitioner during the investigation, she stated that co-accused Kamlesh made a confessional statement implicating herself and the present petitioner. That statement was recorded under Section 161 of the Code and she stated therein that it was on account of her illicit relation with the present petitioner that the deceased committed suicide. That statement amounts to confession and having been made before the police is not admissible in evidence. No other evidence has been collected against the petitioner so far. It is very much clear from the facts of the present case that the investigating agency is not investigating the case seriously and step motherly treatment is being given. The following facts have emerged:- (i) According to the wife of the deceased, she was having illicit relation with the present petitioner; (ii) no report regarding the death of the deceased was lodged by her; and (iii) she herself and the present petitioner went missing from the village after the death of the deceased. Keeping in view these facts, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is only the custodial interrogation of the petitioner which will be helpful in unearthing the conspiracy regarding the murder of the deceased. No ground is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. Dismissed. May 27, 2010 (GURDEV SINGH ) prem JUDGE