IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. M No.33308 of 2008 Date of Decision: January 08, 2009 Tar Singh ...........Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..........Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mrs.Justice Sabina Present: Mr.Navdeep Chhabra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Aman Deep Singh Rai, AAG Punjab * * * Sabina, J. Petitioner has filed this Criminal Misc. under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of regular bail in case FIR No.116 dated 11.11.2007 registered under Section 304 IPC (later on added 302 IPC) at Police Station Bariwala, District Muktsar. The prosecution case ,in brief, is that on 7.11.2007 at about 6.00 P.M., complainant along with her husband-Darshan Singh and son-Ram Singh had gone to irrigate the vegetables. The husband of the complainant i.e. Darshan Singh and Tar Singh sat together in the house of Tar Singh and they took liquor. In the meantime, Raju, who was younger brother of Tar Singh, also came there. Darshan Singh and Raju exchanged hot words upon some matter and while quarreling with each other, they came out on the bank of the Canal. Complainant along with her son also went after them. Raju pushed Darshan Singh into Canal and as a result of this, Darshan Singh died due to drowning. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that no role was attributed to the petitioner in the FIR. The petitioner is in custody for the Criminal Misc. M No.33308 of 2008 -2- last more than one year. The prosecution has failed to conclude its evidence. In fact, bailable warrants have been issued to summon the PWs. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that on the next day, the complainant and her son-Ram Singh had suffered a supplementary statement that the petitioner had also participated in the scuffle. In the present case, the petitioner is in custody for the last more than one year. In the FIR, no role has been attributed to the petitioner. However, on the next day, the complainant and her son suffered a supplementary statement and averred that the petitioner along with his brother Raju had participated in a scuffle which has resulted into death of Darshan Singh. The fact that whether petitioner had also participated in the scuffle, in the facts and circumstances of the case, would more appropriately be gone into during the trial. Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner is in custody for more than one year and the fact that, initially, no role was attributed to him in the FIR, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, it would be just and expedient to admit the petitioner on bail. Consequently, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is admitted to bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Muktsar. ( Sabina ) Judge January 08, 2009 arya