CRM-M-25260 of 2011 - 1 - IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** CRM-M-25260 of 2011 Date of Decision:12.10.2011 Kuldeep . . .Petitioner Versus State of Haryana . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.KDS Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana. ***** RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) Affidavit of ASI Rohtash Singh is filed in Court and copy of the same is given to the counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner has prayed for bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.922 dated 6.11.2006 under Sections 302, 307, 34 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) and Sections 25/54/59 of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘the Act’) at Police Station City Gurgaon. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the occurrence dated 5.11.2006 Ramesh Yadav died because of injuries whereas Dimple survived. The complaint was registered by Vikas. The Police had challaned four co-accused namely, Kuldeep Singh son of Satbir Singh, Sandeep son of Bhoop Singh, Rishi son of Baljeet Singh and Ravi son of Gayan Chand, who were tried in Sessions case No.29 of 2.6.2008/17.37.2007 by Additional Sessions Judge, Gurgaon wherein the survived injured witness namely, Dimple did not support the case of the prosecution as he did not identify the aforesaid four co-accused, who alleged to have committed the murder in the presence of Vikas, therefore, the aforesaid co-accused were acquitted by the learned trial CRM-M-25260 of 2011 - 2 - Court vide its order dated 27.11.2009. It is further submitted that the petitioner was taken into custody in March 2011 on the disclosure statement of Ravi son of Gayan Chand and Kuldeep son of Satbir Singh who had faced trial and are acquitted in the aforesaid Sessions case. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner is involved because of Section 120-B IPC as he and his son are the mastermind, who made the plan for the purpose of eliminating both Ramesh and Dimple. He however, submits that there is no overt- act attributed to the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the parties but without making any observation on the merits of the case, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing two heavy sureties to the satisfaction of the trial Court. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) OCTOBER 12, 2011 JUDGE Vivek