RAJVIR SINGH @ RAJU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application seeking regular bail in FIR No. 65 dated 30.9.2009, under Sections 302/201/34 of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station GRPS, Bathinda.

(2.) LEARNED Senior counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that Petitioner has been involved on the basis of misguided suspicion and on the basis of last seen circumstantial evidence as well as on the basis of alleged extra judicial confession. Mr. Deol, Senior Advocate has further stated that circumstantial evidence is a weak type of evidence. The Petitioner is in judicial custody since 5.10.2009 and out of 27 witnesses only two witnesses have been examined. He, while placing reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of State of Kerala v. Raneef, 2011(1) RCR 381, has argued that if trial is not likely to be concluded at the earliest then bail should be granted keeping in mind if bail is refused, time spent in the jail during the trial cannot be restored to the accused -Petitioner if ultimately accused -Petitioner is acquitted by the trial Court.

(3.) CONSIDERING totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in mind the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Raneef (supra), present petition is allowed. Let Petitioner be released on bail to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.