IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJUAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc.M-10035 of 2011 DATE OF ORDER: 15.11.2011 Gurbinder Singh @ Kali and another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI Present: Mr. M.K. Singla, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. A.S. Hunda, Advocate for the complainant. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (Oral) The petitioners seek concession of regular bail in a case of murder of Devinder Singh. As per the statement of the complainant Harnek Singh, on 6.7.2010 the deceased Devinder Singh was found lying on the road side in an injured condition having number of injuries with the sharp edged weapon on his head, stomach, right arm etc. When he was taken to the hospital in a vehicle, he was declared dead. Since nobody had seen the occurrence, it was mentioned that some unknown persons killed Devinder Singh by giving injuries with sharp edged weapon. During the course of investigation, the motive for injuries in the present case is denial for the marriage of his daughter by deceased Devinder Singh to the accused Jatinder Singh. Gurbinder Singh has allegedly joined Jitender Singh in causing the murder of Devinder Singh. The story of the prosecution is sought to be substantiated by the circumstantial evidence only which contains the evidence of motive, extra judicial confession and recoveries. About 8 witnesses out of 23 witnesses stand already examined. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the case being based on circumstantial evidence and the material witnesses having been examined, the petitioners should be granted the concesson of bail. A perusal of the post mortem report and the inquest report indicate that the deceased had number of injuries on his person with sharp edge weapon and extra judicial confession is alleged to have been made Crl. Misc.M-10035 of 2011 -2- before PW-6 Iqbal Singh. The motive has been proved by Surinder Kaur. Whether the circumstances of recovery of weapon, motive and extra judicial confession would constitute a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the petitioners and none else cannot be appreciated at this stage. Besides this, it will not be appropriate to express opinion on merits regarding the strength of circumstantial evidence produced. In view of totality of above circumstances, it is ordered that the trial Court will conclude the trial within a period of three months from the next date of hearing before it. In case, the trial is not concluded within the stipulated period, it will be open to the petitioner to seek the concession of bail by approaching this Court again. 15.11.2011 ( M.M.S. BEDI ) rajeev JUDGE