Crl. Misc. No. 30567 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. 30567 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 30.11.2011. Kuldip Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. P.S. Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajaib Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/accused- Kuldip Singh has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on regular bail in FIR No. 172 dated 5.11.2008, registered under Sections 302/34/120- B I.P.C in Police Station Sadar Muktsar. He has contended therein that as per the contents of the FIR, it was blind murder. Now Beant Singh is projected as eye witness. A perusal of his statement makes it very much clear that he has been falsely introduced as eye-witness, after due consultations and deliberations. He has been falsely implicated after four days of the alleged occurrence on the basis of the extra-judicial confession made by the co-accused – Gursewak Singh. Even that extra-judicial confession allegedly made by Amandeep Kaur is a cooked up story. He was arrested from his house on 9.11.2008 and he is coming in custody since then. He has not been named as accused by Darshan Singh – complainant. His statement has already been recorded Crl. Misc. No. 30567 of 2010 (O&M) -2- during the trial. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel for the respondent. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that as per the contents of the FIR, Beant Singh was with Darshan Singh – complainant when they had set out in search of the deceased and had found the dead body. Immediately after recording of the FIR statement of Beant Singh was recorded and he never stated at that time that he witnessed the occurrence and had seen the present petitioner strangulating the deceased. He has been falsely introduced as eye-witness and as such his statement cannot be used against the petitioner. He also submitted that the alleged extra-judicial confession made by Amandeep Kaur before Gursewak Singh is also a cooked up evidence. The FIR was recorded on 5.11.2008 on the statement of Darshan Singh – complainant and as per his version Beant Singh PW was with him when they had gone in search of Harjinder Singh – deceased and even dead body was recovered in the presence of that Beant Singh. When his statement was recorded on 5.11.2008 under Section 161 Cr.P.C, he narrated the version as given in the FIR and never stated that any such occurrence took place in his presence. However his second statement was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C on 8.11.2008 and at that time he came out with the version that he had seen the present petitioner and Rajwinder Singh strangulating Harvinder Singh to death by putting a wire around his neck. He also stated the reason for not making the statement earlier and the reason explained by him was that he was threatened by the accused not to disclose Crl. Misc. No. 30567 of 2010 (O&M) -3- the facts. His statement has already been recorded by the trial Court as PW- 6 and he supported the prosecution version that he had seen Rajwinder Singh and the present petitioner strangulating Harvinder Singh to death. Evidentiary value of his statement shall be ascertained by the trial Court. For the purposes of deciding the present application it is suffice to say that Beant Singh has to come out with a direct version against the accused before the Court. There are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner caused the death of Harvinder Singh by strangulating him to the death with the help of wire. Keeping in view the heinous nature of the crime, gravity of the offence, the circumstances under which the same was committed and the sentence which can be imposed for such like offence, I do not find any ground to release the petitioner on bail and the petition is dismissed. November 30, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge