In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc.-M No.31267 of 2008 ..... Date of decision:7.1.2009 Rakesh .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Bijender Dhankar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Singh Ghangas, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent-State. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner Rakesh son of Dharampal seeks regular bail pending trial. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of the Surender son of Jai Singh. It has been alleged by the complainant-Surender that they were two brothers and a sister and he was the eldest. The sister Rekha is younger to him. The youngest brother was Parveen Kumar (deceased). Parveen Kumar was married with Savita (accused). On 5.12.2006, a threatening call had been received by the complainant Surender on his mobile number and on the day of marriage of Parveen Kumar another call had been received on his mobile phone from the same very phone from which the earlier call had been received. The threat was to the effect that the marriage between Parveen Kumar (deceased) and Savita should not be Cr. Misc.-M No.31267 of 2008 [2] solemnized otherwise they would have to repent. After marriage also the wife of Parveen Kumar had been receiving phones on their land line phone about which Nirmala-mother of the complainant and his father had been apprised by the complainant. Due to the threats held out, the complainant called the parents of Savita and in their presence they enquired about the receipt of phone calls. Then the family members of Savita disclosed that Vikas-accused from the village of Savita used to call her. After making Savita understand the said fact they had suppressed it due to dignity of family and relatives. On 14.6.2007 at around 6.30/7.00 O'clock in the morning three phone calls were received on their landline which were attended by the mother of the complainant. The caller from the other side informed the mother of the complainant that the job had been done, sorry. The mother of the complainant then told Parveen Kumar that somebody had been making obnoxious calls on which Parveen Kumar while threatening the caller had disconnected the telephone. This fact was informed by the mother of the complainant-Surender to him (complainant). Thereafter, mother of the complainant informed the complainant that wife of Parveen Kumar who had gone to her parents' house about a week back, had made a phone call on mobile of Parveen Kumar at 7.30 p.m. in the evening. On receipt of the phone call Parveen Kumar had left the house in his Maruti car. On 15.6.2007 at 6.00 O'clock in the morning Ravi, who is an uncle of the complainant in relation informed the complainant that the Maruti car of Parveen was lying in their fields near the drain (Ganda Nala). On hearing this the complainant along with his father Jai Singh, uncle Suresh, Sarpanch, father's elder brother Ishwar and other members of the family Cr. Misc.-M No.31267 of 2008 [3] went to the fields near the drain and they found that the car of Parveen was lying there. They made the car straight on the ground and they found that the dead body of Parveen was lying inside. His legs were on the driver side and head was on the other seat and blood and bubble were seen on the nostril as well as of mouth and the rear seat of the car. A white colour `Chunni' having a knot was lying. The same was stained with blood. The complainant and his family members took out the dead body of Parveen Kumar from the car and on its examination the marks were noticed on his neck. The complainant after leaving Suresh, Sarpanch, his father and other family members near the dead body of Parveen was going to the Police Station to report the matter that Om Parkash, SI/SHO Police Station, Sadar Sonepat met him. It is evident that in the FIR the name of the petitioner is not mentioned as an accused. The petitioner has been named as an accused on the disclosure statement of Vikas son of Ram Narayan with whom Savita is stated to have an affair. No recovery has been effected from the person of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the place where the death of Parveen Kumar had occurred had been demarcated by the petitioner. The effect of the demarcation said to have been done by the petitioner and the value of the disclosure statement of Vikas, who has named the petitioner as an accused would more appropriately be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court after evidence has been led. The petitioner is in custody since 24.6.2007 and till date only four witnesses out of 23 have been examined. The trial in the case is likely to take time. Cr. Misc.-M No.31267 of 2008 [4] In the facts and circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner Rakesh on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat shall be admitted to bail. January 7, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*