Crl. Misc. No. M-10346 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-10346 of 2009 Date of Decision : July 10, 2009 Sarabjit Singh @ Sabi .... Petitioner Vs. State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. S. Dinarpur, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, AAG, Haryana. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Sarabjit Singh @ Sabi has filed this petition for bail in case FIR No. 381 dated 10.10.2008, under Sections 148, 149, 302, 323, 341, 427 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC), registered at Police Station City Jagadhri, District Yamuna Nagar. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. The main occurrence took place on 09.10.2008 at about 10:30 P.M. Mahender Singh, Sonu Daggar, Rohtash, Lucky, Rajan Sharma, Jaswant Jat, Babu Jat armed with swords and gandasi along with 15-20 other persons armed with lathis and dandas, whose names were not known to Sukram Pal complainant, attacked the complainant party and committed murder of Hardev Singh and Shiv Kumar. Crl. Misc. No. M-10346 of 2009 2 The petitioner was not named in the FIR. However, Harish @ Lovely, who was named in the FIR, made disclosure statement dated 16.10.2008 (Annexure P-1), wherein he stated that the petitioner also participated in the occurrence. Complainant Sukram Pal made supplementary statement on 18.11.2008 i.e. after 40 days of the occurrence that Sarabjit Singh and seven other persons named by him in the supplementary statement had inflicted injuries on the persons of the deceased with swords, gandasi and dandas. Pursuant to disclosure statement of the petitioner, a danda is said to have been recovered at his instance. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was named by co-accused Lovely in disclosure statement for the first time seven days after the occurrence. It is also contended that the said statement may not be admissible against the petitioner. It is also pointed out that supplementary statement of the complainant, wherein he named the petitioner, was recorded 40 days after the occurrence. It is further submitted that even in the supplementary statement, no specific role or weapon has been attributed to the petitioner and only a danda has allegedly been recovered at his instance. It is also stated that the petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2008 i.e. for almost eight months. It is also contended that no other witness has named the petitioner. Learned State counsel, after seeking instructions from ASI Basant Singh, does not controvert the aforesaid factual position. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to express any opinion on merits, the instant bail petition is allowed. Bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Yamuna Nagar. July 10, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE