Crl. Misc. No.M-29230 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-29230 of 2010 Date of decision: 25.11.2010 Harnek Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Karanjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 22.06.2007 at Police Station Bhikhiwind, District Tarn Taran, for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Baljit Singh. According to Baljit Singh (complainant), his brother Tarlochan Singh (deceased) was on visiting terms with Harnek Singh (petitioner) because the family of Harnek Singh used to borrow money from them in case of an emergency. Harnek Singh etc. had constructed their residential house in the fields and the house of Gurvinder Singh adjoins the house of Harnek Singh. Gurvinder Singh wanted to purchase land of Harnek Singh etc. Therefore, Gurvinder Singh had enmity with the family of the complainant. The land which Gurvinder Singh wanted to purchase from Harnek Singh was however purchased by the complainant side. Therefore, Gurvinder Singh nursed a grudge against the Crl. Misc. No.M-29230 of 2010 ::2:: complainant side and he joined hands with the petitioner-Harnek Singh. On 22.06.2007, i.e. some days earlier to the incident, Harnek Singh had an altercation with Tarlochan Singh. That matter was compromised with the intervention of respectables. However, they still kept a grudge in this regard in their mind. On the evening prior to the occurrence, when the complainant was going for his duty then he saw Harnek Singh armed with gandasi, Gurvinder Singh armed with gandasi, Gurjant Singh @ Banti armed with sota and Bakhshish Singh was armed with kirpan. They were sitting at their tubewell with Tarlochan Singh. The complainant asked Tarlochan Singh as to why they had come here. On this, Tarlochan Singh stated that he (complainant) should not worry and he should go for his duty. The complainant left for his duty and when he returned back from duty at 5.30 a.m. in the morning, then, he saw that Tarlochan Singh was lying on the cot near the tubewell. The complainant called him but he did not respond. When the complainant went near Tarlochan Singh, he saw that there were injuries on his (Tarlochan Singh's) head, which were caused with sharp edged weapons and he was lying dead. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no eye-witness to the murder of Tarlochan Singh as no one is alleged to have seen the occurrence. Besides, there is no strong motive for the petitioner to commit the murder of Tarlochan Singh. The petitioner is in custody since 21.07.2007. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the prosecution examined 7 witnesses and the trial in the case is going on. It is submitted that 12 witnesses remain to be examined and some of them would be given up even. The case before the trial Court is now fixed for hearing on 15.12.2010. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that it is a murder case; besides, the trial is going on, it Crl. Misc. No.M-29230 of 2010 ::3:: would be inexpedient to extend the concession of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. It is, however, hoped that the learned trial Court would take effective steps to dispose of the case as expeditiously as possible. (S.S. SARON) November 25, 2010 JUDGE sukhpreet