← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCRM-M/40924/2015disposed of

Prem Partap Singh v. State Of Haryana

2016-05-10Mr. Justice Krishna Murari3 pages

RAJ KUMAR ARORA 2016.05.11 17:10

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CRM-M-40924-2015 (O&M).

Decided on: May 10, 2016.

Prem Partap Singh ..... Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Haryana ..... Respondent(s) * * *

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI PRESENT Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr.C.S.Bakshi, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

Mr.Veneet Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant.

M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL).

Petitioner seeks concession of regular bail in a case of murder of Sumit Kumar son of complainant Shahzada Ram. The case of the prosecution is that son of the complainant had been killed by firing from a country made pistol. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been involved in the case on the basis of misguided suspicion whereas there is absolutely no admissible evidence available on the record against him. He has urged that during the course of investigation the evidence which has been gathered by the prosecution agency is only qua Sonu and Rakesh. Petitioner and

Deepak Singh had been involved in the case later on. It has been argued that an attempt has been made by the prosecution agency to connect the petitioner with the crime on the basis of certain circumstancial evidence i.e., recovery of weapon (country made pistol); recovery of stained chappal on demarcation of the place of occurrence by the petitioner; recovery of mat of the car used to take the deceased and confessional statement made by the petitioner in custody before the Investigating Officer which absolutely is inadmissible.

Counsel for the petitioner has referred to the statements of the witnesses who have already been examined to submit that none of the witness have indicted the petitioner. Counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, has argued that no doubt co-accused of the petitioner has been granted the concession of bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court but during the course of arguments regarding bail of Deepak Singh, an argument had been raised that it is the petitioner who is the main accused having been found prima facie guilty of having committed the murder of Sumit Kumar.

Counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the alleged confessional statement is absolutely a bundle of lies and none of the averments in the alleged confessional statement coincide with the actual facts.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner

as well as the learned counsel for the complainant and gone through the order of bail passed by a coordinate Bench regarding Deepak Singh.

In view of majority of witnesses having been examined, without expression of any opinion on merits, it is felt expedient in the interest of justice to dispose of this petition with a direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial within four months after the next date of hearing. It will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court again if the trial is not concluded within the aforesaid period of four months.

Disposed of accordingly.

(M.M.S. BEDI) May 10, 2016.

JUDGE rka