CRM No.M-32649 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-32649 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 26.04.2011 Vikas Manchanda ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CRM No.1990 of 2011 Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka ... Petitioner versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.C.PURI Present : Mr. J.S.Bedi, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM No.M-32649 of 2010. Mr. Brijender Kaushik, Advocate for the petitioner in CRM No.1990 of 2011. Mr. Amandeep Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana. **** K.C.PURI, J. CRM No.22186 of 2011 Allowed as prayed for. CRM No.22185 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in the application, same is allowed. Annexures P-9 & P-10 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. Main Case Vide this order I intend to dispose of CRM No.M-32649 of 2010 titled as Vikas Manchanda versus State of Haryana and CRM CRM No.M-32649 of 2010 (O&M) -2- No.1990 of 2011titled as Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka versus State of Haryana as both the petition have arisen out of same FIR. As per allegation of the prosecution, Rakesh @ Bobby has to attend the court hearing on 03.03.2010. The complainant – Parkash Kaur and her daughter-in-law Simran, wife of Rakesh @ Bobby were also happened to be present in the court premises. It is alleged that Vikram @ Bunty in the dress of Sardar Advocate fired from pistol resulting into the death of Rakesh @ Bobby. It is alleged that Parkash Kaur, on 06.01.2010, heard the conversation between Radha Kaushal, Rantej and Kulwinder Singh @ Kaka – petitioner that Rantej Singh was saying that he had a talk with Nishan Singh and all the arrangements had been made by him and he would send a person, who would meet Vikram @ Bunty and arranged for arms and money. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that Vikas Manchanda is not mentioned in the FIR. The allegation against him is that he gave 2.20 lacs to Radha Kaushal in all for arranging the murder through Vikrma @ Bunty. It is further submitted that confessional statement of the co-accused is not admissible. He has contended that Radha Kaushal has been allowed concession of anticipatory bail by this Court in CRM No.M-12191 of 2010 vide order dated 06.08.2010. It is further contended that Rantej Singh has not been arrayed as an accused. So, the allegation of the conspiracy is not proved. It is contended that petitioners are in custody for more than one year and out of 38 witnesses only 3 witnesses have been examined. The bail application has been opposed by the learned State CRM No.M-32649 of 2010 (O&M) -3- counsel. It is submitted that evidence of conspiracy is there against the petitioners and they are not entitled to the concession of bail. I have considered the submission made by the counsel for the parties. The allegation against both the petitioners are that they have conspired for the murder of Rakesh @ Bobby. In the FIR, the name of Vikas Manchanda is not mentioned. So far as the withdrawal of amount of Rs.50,000/- on 13.05.2009 is concerned, from the statement of account it is revealed that amount Rs.50,000/- was not withdrawn only on one date but it is a regular feature and Rs.50,000/- has been withdrawn on many dates. Radha Kaushal has been allowed concession of anticipatory bail. Rantej Singh, the other conspirator has not been arrayed as an accused. Both the petitioners are in custody for more than one year. Without commenting on the merits of the case, both the petitioners are granted concession of regular bail to the satisfaction of Trial Court. April 26, 2011 (K.C.PURI) sonia JUDGE