Crl. Misc. No. M –18846 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M –18846 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 19.8.2010 Jagdeep Singh @ Bittu ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. H.K.Dhillon, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Brar, Sr. DAG, Punjab. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) The petitioner/accused Jagdeep Singh @ Bittu has filed this petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for releasing him on bail for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 341, 148 and 149 IPC, in respect of which FIR No. 38 dated 30.4.2007 was registered in Police Station Sudhar, Ludhiana and for which he is standing his trial before the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. He has contended therein that false FIR was got registered against him and the other accused and after the completion of the investigation, the challan was presented only against him. In spite of the fact that a direction was issued by this Court to the trial Court to decide the case as expeditiously as possible within one year, the trial Court failed to decide the same. Thereafter another direction was issued to the trial Court to conclude the trial within three months and still the same was not done. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Crl. Misc. No. M –18846 of 2010 (O&M) -2- intention of the prosecution is to keep the petitioner behind the bars and every effort is being made to delay the trial and the same has not been concluded in spite of specific directions to that effect by this Court. That itself is a ground for releasing the petitioner on bail. She also submitted that the complainant had a motive to lodge false FIR against the petitioner, who had got registered FIR against him just two days before alleged occurrence. In fact the petitioner has been falsely implicated which fact is apparent from the rough site plan prepared at the spot by the Investigating Officer and the records of the DMC and Hospital, Ludhiana, where deceased was got admitted. The blood was never collected by the investigating agency from the place where injuries are alleged to have been caused to the deceased and the nature of weapon of offence was never disclosed at the time of admission of the deceased in the hospital. It has not been disputed by learned State counsel that there were directions by this Court to conclude the trial first within one year and then within a period of three months and even then the same has not concluded so far. It is also a fact that the case has not been decided in view of the order of stay passed by this very Court in the revision petition filed by the complainant. In view of that order it was not possible for the trial Court to decide the case within the specific period. The arguments which have been so advanced will amount to appreciation of evidence, which exercise cannot be done while deciding the present petition. The prosecution is relying upon the statement of the complainant, who witnessed the occurrence with his own eyes and according to him the present petitioner had given blow with gandasa on the head of the deceased with an intention to kill him. The Crl. Misc. No. M –18846 of 2010 (O&M) -3- prosecution is also relying upon the medical evidence for corroborating that ocular evidence. When direct evidence is being relied much weight cannot be given to the motive which is now being put forward by the petitioner. From the evidence so collected during the investigation, there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner has committed the murder of the deceased and for such a heinous crime, he is not entitled to the benefit of bail. The petition is dismissed accordingly. August 19, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge