Amandeep Singh @ Happy v. State Of Punjab

   
      ! " 
!



!#$%

!%&'('

) *+* 


      
 , - *

.
 .  .   

 !"
#$"  


% !!

"

&"

.  .   / * 0#1
+

  

!

$ " !

$'      !$$ %'()*+!,%'-)



, 
.'/'(0$ #! 1    !

$ "  !!+ %'()*+!,%'-)



, $
.'/'(0$ #!$!!.$ 

(  

  ! $ 34/ 5 5  !$   !  167(89 -:0:-0-("!

 $ 40365)$ !! $  40-65,"

!

$    ";

 $



- 6  !arned counsel for the petitioner that it is a case where the petitioner is in custody from 29.08.2021 which is more than 11⁄2 years and two prosecution witnesses have been examined including the sister and brother-in-law of the deceased. He submitted that the petitioner has clean antecedents and is not involved in any other case and as per the allegations, the petitioner alongwith the deceased were going in a car which was driven by the deceased himself and the car fell into a canal with the result that the deceased who was in front seat died but the petitioner was survived but he did not disclose the same to the police due to panic.    initially an FIR was lodged under Section 304 IPC but thereafter due to some purported extra judicial confession of the petitioner before a co-villager, challan was presented under Section 302 IPC.          # +          $   $ $$" $   ! 3.

On the other hand, 
% !!

"!

&" has submitted that it is correct that the petitioner is in custody from more than 11⁄2 years and two prosecution witnesses have been examined who are the material witnesses i.e. the sister and brother-in-law of the deceased. He submitted that it is also correct that initially the FIR was lodged under Section 304 IPC but challan was presented under Section 302 IPC on the basis of extra judicial confession. He has however submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case. 4.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5.

The petitioner has already faced incarceration for more than 11⁄2 years. Initially the FIR was loged under Section 304 IPC but converted into 302 IPC at the time of presentation of challan based upon some extra judicial confession. The

 petitioner is stated to be not involved in any other case and two prosecution witnesses who are the material witnesses have already been examined. Furthermore, i  $! $!  $   ! !"  $ $ !$ +  6.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court is of the view that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. 2  !!!  !$ 

 !<  $  !  !5<; 

$$ = +#"

#  # !! .    $ !  $    

.  .  

! 20'1 /     

%  

><7 %  ! ><7