Crl. Misc. No.M-28639 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl. Misc. No.M-28639 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.11.2010 Rajiv Kumar ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ...Respondent CORAM : Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present:- Mr. S.K. Vohra, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Preeti Chaudhary, A.A.G., Haryana for the respondent-State. ***** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? ** NIRMALJIT KAUR, J. This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.267 dated 31.10.2008 registered under Sections 365/302/201/212/120-B IPC and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Sampla, District Rohtak. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was not named in the FIR nor any role is assigned to him. Confession of the co-accused and that too, before the police or in the Police Station is not admissible in evidence. He has been falsely implicated. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Division Bench of Crl. Misc. No.M-28639 of 2010 2 this Court rendered in the case titled as Madan Mohan @ David vs. State of Haryana reported as 1997(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 713 to state that the disclosure statement is totally unreliable and not admissible in evidence. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Apex Court rendered in the case titled as Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar reported as AIR 1964 Supreme Court 1184 to state that the confession of a co-accused person cannot be treated as substantive evidence. It was further contended that the petitioner is in custody since 18.09.2009 i.e for the last one year and the trial has not progressed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments of this Court rendered in the cases titled as Gurmesh Bishnoi vs. State of Haryana reported as 1995(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 593 and Suraj Parkash vs. State of Punjab reported as 2001 (2) R.C.R (Criminal) 577 to substantiate his argument that character of evidence is one of the grounds which would determine whether a bail application was to be allowed or rejected. Heard. Anil and Karambir went missing. On investigation, their bodies were found. All the accused including the petitioner were arrested. As per the investigation, the petitioner had conspired for committing the murder of Anil and Karambir. It is a case of double murder. In pursuance to the disclosure statement made by the co-accused, the dead bodies of Anil and Karambir were recovered from the field which belongs to the petitioner. The said field was pointed out by the co-accused. Thus, the disclosure statement leading to discovery of the fact and recovery of the dead bodies is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. As such, the judgments in the cases of Madan Mohan @ Davidi (supra) and Haricharan Kurmi (supra) do not help the petitioner. It is further brought to the notice of this Court by learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Satpal Singh, that besides another case Crl. Misc. No.M-28639 of 2010 3 bearing FIR No.314 dated 03.03.2009 under Sections 302/34 IPC and Sections 25, 54 and 59 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Bahadurgarh, pending against the present petitioner. Serious allegations are levelled against the petitioner in the present case. It is a case of double murder. Prosecution evidence is yet to be recorded. Thus, the judgments relied on by learned counsel for the petitioner titled as Gurmesh Bishnoi and Suraj Parkash (supra) also do not help the petitioner in the facts of the present case. Accordingly, no ground for grant of bail is made out. Dismissed. (NIRMALJIT KAUR) 26.11.2010 JUDGE gurpreet