Manjit Singh @ Ladi vs State Of Punjab on 31 July, 2009

CRM No.M-16098 of 2009                                     -1-




  HIGH COURT PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                               CRM No.M-16098 of 2009
                                               Date of Decision: 31.07.2009

Manjit Singh @ Ladi                                  ....Petitioner
                                   Versus

State of Punjab                                      ....Respondent



CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL

                       ****

Present: Mr. Harchand Singh Batth, Advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Anter Singh Brar, Senior DAG, Punjab

****
RAJESH BINDAL J (ORAL)

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the FIR
regarding the murder of Parminder Singh @ Sonu got registered by his

father, it was mentioned that some unidentified persons have killed him.
Subsequently, name of the petitioner was added as an accused on the

statement of Hira Singh as he stated that petitioner had confessed before
him regarding the murder of Parminder Singh. In his statement, it was

also mentioned that lastly the deceased was seen with the petitioner. Hira
Singh, the so-called witness before whom the petitioner had made extra-

judicial confession has been given up by the prosecution. Learned counsel
for the petitioner further referred to the order passed by the learned Court

below rejecting the bail application wherein it was mentioned that the
statement of Hira Singh is yet to be recorded. Though the order was

passed on May 30, 2009 but prior thereto on April 28, 2009, Hira Singh has
been given up by the prosecution. The submission is that besides this there

is in fact no evidence with the prosecution.

Learned counsel for the State objected to the grant of bail to

the petitioner stating that it is a case of murder. The petitioner has been
arrayed as an accused on the basis of evidence collected during
CRM No.M-16098 of 2009 -2-

investigation. He has not undergone custody even for a year. The case is
still at the stage of prosecution evidence.

After hearing learned counsel for both the parties and without
expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, in my opinion, the

petitioner deserves to be released on bail pending trial, as conclusion
thereof is likely to take some time. Let the petitioner be released on bail on

furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Tarn
Taran.

The petition stands disposed of.

(RAJESH BINDAL)
JUDGE
31.07.2009
shonkar