In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-34672 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:23.3.2011 Jaswant Singh alias Raju .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. V.P.S. Sidhu, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. ...... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 5.10.2009 for the offences under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. The FIR in the case was registered on the statement of Baldev Singh, who has alleged that his brother Gurdev Singh (deceased) had developed illicit relations with Sita Rani wife of Ajit Singh. Gurdev Singh used to visit Sita Rani and due to this reason the relations between Gurdev Singh (deceased) and his wife, namely, Simran Rani had become strained. Simran Rani wife of Gurdev Singh (deceased) had gone to her parental house at Village Kandwala Amarkot along with her children. The Village Panchayat had been convened twice due to illicit relations of Gurdev Singh with Sita Rani but they did not mend their ways. On 14.6.2009, at about 2.00 to 2.30 p.m. Gurdev Singh had gone to the house of Sita Rani where he Cr. Misc. No.M-34672 of 2010 [2] had his meals. At about 3.30 p.m. the son of Sita Rani, namely, Raju (petitioner-Jaswant Singh) dropped Gurdev Singh in the street in front of his house and returned back to his house. Then Gurdev Singh brother of the complainant fell down on being perturbed. The complainant rushed towards him and Gurdev Singh told him that Sita Rani had embezzled his money and had administered some substance and he be taken to the doctor. The FIR in respect of the incident that occurred on 14.6.2009 was registered on 5.10.2009. The petitioner was arrested on 6.10.2009 and since then he is in custody. He is alleged to have dropped Gurdev Singh in front of his house. As per the statement of the complainant, his brother Gurdev Singh (deceased) had informed him that Sita Rani had administered something to him. He does not name the petitioner as having administered something. Therefore, the role of the petitioner is to be ascertained after evidence has been led. Out of 21 witnesses cited by the prosecution, only 3 witnesses have been examined and the petitioner has been in custody since 6.10.2009. The trial in the case is likely to take time. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ferozepur shall be admitted to bail. March 23, 2011. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*