IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-986 of 2010 Date of decision : 29.10.2010 Chamkaur Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Paul, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Ashok Singla, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. As per office report, counsel for the parties have been informed of the date fixed. Learned State counsel on instruction from ASI Gulshan Kumar, Police Station Barnala, District Sangrur has submitted that the case is now fixed for final arguments on 3.11.2010. In compliance to the order dated 12.8.2010 affidavit of Sh. Harcharan Singh Bhullar, PPS, Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala has been filed. It is stated that out of 20 witnesses mentioned in the list of witnesses, twelve witnesses were examined, three were given up by the prosecution as on 20.8.2010. The prosecution then had to examine five witnesses only. The case it was stated was pending trial in the Court for 15.9.2010 for two witnesses namely Inspector Sukhminder Singh, the Investigating Officer who was bound down for the said date as also Dr. S.S. Oberoi, Rajindera Hospital, Patiala who had conducted the post mortem examination. It is also submitted Crl. Misc. No. M-986 of 2010 [2] that HC Gurnam Singh attended this Court on 7.7.2010 and at that time nine PWs had been examined, one had been given up and ten Pws still remained to be examined; whereas Gurnam Singh had reported in this Court that only one witness remained to be examined. On 12.8.2010 when ASI Paramjit Singh attended the Court the factual position was that eleven PWs had been examined, two had been given up and six PWs remained to be examined, whereas ASI Paramjit Singh had stated that thirteen PWs had been recorded, four given up and three PWs remained to be examined. It is submitted that so far as the lapses on the part of HC Gurnam Singh and ASI Paramjit Singh in giving wrong and inconsistent instructions to the Court are concerned, their explanation has been sought and they have stated that they had inadvertently supplied wrong information. However, on account of their lapse both of them have been placed under suspension and shall be dealt with by way of a regular departmental inquiry. In view of the above, the affidavit is accepted Keeping in view the fact that the case is now fixed for final hearing on 3.11.2010, no ground for grant of bail is made out at this stage. Crl. Misc. petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 29, 2010 amit