IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. M. No.18509-M of 2010 Date of Decision:22.12.2010 Mukesh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. R.M. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sidharth Sarup, D.A.G. Haryana. Mr. Amit Kumar Goyal, Advocate for the complainant. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) Prayer made in the present petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners in case FIR No.68 dated 11.3.2010 registered under Sections 304/34 IPC at Police Station Shivaji Colony, Rohtak, District Rohtak. It is stated that the present petitioners have been enroped on the basis of suspicion. The same is unfounded. The deceased is stated to have visited the house of the present petitioners under the influence of intoxication. He was unconscious. Despite the request of the family members of the petitioners to sleep, he left the house and in the morning his dead body was found. It is further stated that the complainant too has died and an application under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. has been moved for recording the evidence of the wife of the complainant. The challan has been filed under Section 304 IPC. Although the charges have been framed under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC or alternative Section 304/34 IPC. Thus, it is still to be determined as to whether there is any direct Crl. M. No.18509-M of 2010 -2- involvement of the present petitioners or they have been enroped only on the basis of suspicion and in any case whether the offence falls under Section 302 IPC or 304 IPC. The matter is being adjourned for one reason or other to record the evidence of the prosecution. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Rohtak. 22.12.2010 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE