Criminal Misc. No. 46559-M of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 46559-M of 2007 Date of decision: July 20, 2009 Jagtar Singh @ Tari -Petitioner Versus State of Punjab -Respondent Coram Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajan Gupta Present: Mr. MS Uppal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Shilesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab. Mr. RK Singla, Advocate, for the complainant. Rajan Gupta, J.(Oral) This is a petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 302/34 IPC at Police Station Jhunir, Tehsil Sardulgarh, District Mansa vide FIR No. 36 dated 13-5-2007. The allegation in the FIR is that son of the complainant was murdered by the accused-petitioner. As many as 8 injuries were found on the body of the deceased, which were ante-mortem in nature. Mr. Uppal has argued that the petitioner was implicated on the basis of supplementary statement of the complainant recorded after 10 days of registration of the case. According to the counsel, implication of the petitioner is an afterthought and thus the prosecution story is palpably false. This apart, according to the learned counsel, petitioner is in custody for quite sometime and trial is still at the stage of prosecution evidence. He submits that the petitioner thus deserves to be enlarged on bail. Criminal Misc. No. 46559-M of 2007 2 Counsel for the State has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer for bail. He has submitted that there is evidence available to show complicity of the petitioner in the commission of crime. According to the counsel, an iron strip (Patri) was recovered at the instance of the petitioner, which corroborates his involvement in the murder of complainant's son. Learned counsel further submits that in case enlarged on bail, possibility of the petitioner absconding from justice cannot be ruled out. I have heard counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case. The main ground agitated for bail is that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of a supplementary statement recorded after 10 days of the incident. In my considered view, this is not a sufficient ground for grant of bail. Case is at the stage of prosecution evidence. The pleas raised at this stage can only be appreciated after evidence comes before the trial court. There is allegation of previous enmity between the petitioner and the deceased. The petitioner is alleged to have threatened the complainant that he would finish both, father & son even if he had to sell some of his land. Eighteen years old son of the petitioner was later brutally murdered. Keeping in view the nature of allegations, the gravity of crime and the punishment it would entail in case of conviction, no case for enlarging the petitioner on bail is made out. The petition is hereby dismissed. [Rajan Gupta] Judge July 20, 2009. 'ask'