Cr.Misc. M 12833 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 12833 of 2011 Date of decision: 9.12.2011 Naveen Singla petitioner vs State of Punjab respondent Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate. Mr. PS Bajwa, DAG, Pb M.M.S.BEDI, J. The petitioner seeks the concession of regular bail in a case registered at the instance of Malkiat Singh alleging that his brother Satnam Singh had learnt the work of treatment of bones from one Dr.Satnam Singh, resident of Mukandpur, district Ludhiana and said Dr. Satnam Singh had promised the brother of the complainant that a licence on receipt of Rs.3.50 lacs would be given to him. A sum of Rs.3 lacs had already been paid by him. Remaining sum of Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of handing over the licence. Dr.Satnam Singh had allegedly called the complainant's brother for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The brother of the complainant Satnam Singh did not return after 30.4.2010. On 5.5.2010 dead body of the deceased was recovered from Sirhind Canal. FIR was registered against Satnam Singh and two others. Subsequently, the petitioner was also arrayed as an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, which was in the shape of statement of Arjan Singh, before whom the petitioner had made an extra judicial confession of having Cr.Misc. M 12833 of 2011 -2- accompanied Dr.Satnam Singh and attacked him with a knife. The petitioner allegedly made an extra judicial confession before him with a request to produce him before the court. Similar statement of Ramandeep Singh was also recorded to the effect that deceased Satnam Singh was last seen with the petitioner and his co-accused Dr.Satnam Singh. The statements of Arjan Singh and Ramandeep Singh have already been recorded. Chances of tampering with the evidence are remote. Without expression of any opinion on merits of the case, it is sufficient to observe that it is a case, based upon circumstantial evidence. The witnesses establishing the circumstances have already been recorded. It will be debatable during trial if the circumstantial evidence produced in the court constitutes a complete chain , enabling the court to arrive at a conclusion that the petitioner along with others and none else is responsible for the murder of Satnam Singh. It is pertinent to observe that no specific motive has been attributed to the petitioner. Taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner has been in custody since 11.5.20210, he can be granted the concession of bail. The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on furnishing bail bond/surety bond to the satisfaction of the trial court. Nothing mentioned in the order will prejudice the right of the prosecution at the time of final adjudication of the matter. December 9 , 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE