IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-11044 of 2010 Date of decision : 7.10.2010 Amandeep Singh @ Rinku …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present : Mr. T.S. Sangha, Senior Advocate with Mr. I.S. Mann, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. VPS Sidhu, AAG, Punjab. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 20.1.2008 for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Arjun Singh Dhillon. According to the complainant his son namely Surjit Singh (deceased) was working as Revenue Patwari in Halqa Mehma Bhagwan, District Bathinda. Surjit Singh was earlier married to Kulwant Kaur and they had two daughters from the said marriage. Kulwant Kaur died on 17.6.2007. Thereafter, Surjit Singh got married to Manpreet Kaur on 24.11.2007. She had a son aged 5/6 years old from her first marriage. She had divorced her first husband. The son of the complainant i.e. Surjit Singh (deceased) was handicapped from left leg due to accident and an iron rod had been implanted in his left leg. On 17.1.2008 at about 5.30/6.00 p.m. when Surjit Singh (deceased) returned from his office, there was an altercation between him and his wife Manpreet Kaur. Manpreet Kaur had Crl. Misc. No. M-11044 of 2010 [2] wanted that Surjit Singh should transfer the property in her name. The complainant pacified them. On 20.1.2008 at 7.15 a.m., the complainant heard a noise from the roof top. Children were not present at home and Surjit Singh (deceased) was lying in an unconscious state on the bed. The complainant along with his son Manpreet Singh @ Kala ran towards the house of Surjit Singh and found that outer gate of the house was locked from outside. They went towards the back door and entered the house and saw his (complainant’s) son namely Surjit Singh lying dead on bed and his son and daughter were missing. They tried to contact them on mobile phone but their mobile phones were switched off. Death of Surjit Singh had occurred under mysterious circumstances. The allegations against the petitioner are that he being a friend of Manpreet Kaur had helped her to commit the murder of Surjit Singh and in this regard he made a confession before one Gurmeet Singh Mann son of Hakam Singh. Besides, Paramjit Singh whose two daughters are married with sons of the complainant Arjun Singh Dhillon was going from Bathinda to Abohar and at 12.00 p.m. on 14.3.2008 when he reached near the house of the complainant, he saw that a silver metallic colour Zen car was parked outside the house of Surjit Singh (deceased) and a boy with cut hair was sitting on the driver seat. The statement of Gurmeet Singh has been recorded by the learned trial Court as PW7 and statement of Paramjit Singh was also recorded. The petitioner is said to have made an extra-judicial confession before Gurmeet Singh (PW7). However, Gurmeet Singh (PW7) while appearing in the witness-box had stated that Manpreet Kaur had not stated the name of her friend who was an accomplice in the murder with her, despite repeated insistence to this effect by Gurmeet Singh (PW7). Gurmeet Singh (PW7) Crl. Misc. No. M-11044 of 2010 [3] was declared hostile. The evidence of Gurmeet Singh (PW7) is to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court and it would be improper for this Court to go into the same at this stage. The petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years. The prosecution is still to examine 28 witnesses and the trial in the case is likely to take time. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is a telephone record to show that various deliberations were exchanged between Manpreet Kaur, the main accused and the petitioner before the occurrence. The same is also to be considered by the learned trial Court. In the circumstances, keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years and also the fact that 28 PWs remain to be examined, it would be just and expedient to grant bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 7, 2010 amit