Crl.M.No.M-28643 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-28643 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 24, 2011 Pargat Singh .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.H.S.Batth, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms.Kavita Arora, AAG, Punjab. ..... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.561 dated 2.8.2009, under Sections 302/120-B IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Bathinda. Reply has been filed by the respondent -State today in Court. The same is taken on record. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully. This is the 3rd application for bail filed on behalf of the present petitioner-accused. First application was got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 1.4.2010. Again, the second application was filed, which was also got dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 8.9.2010. Only subsequent fact argued by learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been continuing in custody for the last 1-1/2 years and that no witness has been examined so far. Brief facts are that initially the case was registered against one Jagtar Singh and two unknown accused persons. However, during preliminary investigation, involvement of present petitioner-accused Pargat Singh and Raj Kumar @ Raju, Surinder Singh @ Shokhi and Karan Kumar Crl.M.No.M-28643 of 2010 (O&M) -1- @ Ranbir Singh was also found. However, Jagtar Singh was found innocent and the challan was presented against the present petitioner alongwith Raj Kumar @ Raju, Surinder Singh @ Shokhi and Karan Kumar @ Ranbir Singh. The present case is based on circumstantial evidence. Petitioner-accused was last seen with the deceased alongwith other co- accused by PW-Tara Singh. After arrest of the petitioner-accused, a purse containing identity card of the deceased was also recovered from the possession of petitioner-accused on the basis of disclosure statement. It has also been contended by learned State counsel that as per statement of Binder Singh, the present petitioner-accused is the main conspirator for committing the murder of deceased Sandeep Singh. He has stated in his statement, Annexure P2, that petitioner-accused alongwith Raj Kumar @ Raju, and Sikanandar Singh @ Shaunki were sitting in Hari Dhaba at Mansa crossing on 31.7.2009 and they were talking. Raj Kumar was saying that Sandeep Singh @ Bobby have taken illegal possession of the land of his maternal uncle Vivekananda situated near the bank of canal and that he is not vacating the possession and hence, Pargat Singh said that they should take him in confidence and kill him and that he would render them every help in this manner. It has also been contended that statement of PW-1 Paramjit Singh, Annexure P1, is also on the same lines. Hence, it is contended that petitioner-accused is the main conspirator of this murder Hence, in view of these facts, the present petitioner-accused is not entitled for concession of bail, at this stage. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner-Pargat Singh for grant of regular bail is dismissed. However, learned trial Court is directed to expedite the trial as petitioner has been continuing in custody since 7.8.2009 and no witness has been examined so far. Registry is directed to send copy of this order to learned trial Court for compliance. 24.1.2011 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge Crl.M.No.M-28643 of 2010 (O&M) -1-