PRADEEP KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail under Section 439 Cr.P.C in case bearing FIR No.250 dated 30.08.2019 registered under Sections 363 and 366-A IPC (Sections 302, 201, 120-B IPC added later on) at Police Station Kheri Pul, Faridabad.

(2.) The FIR was registered on the statement of Ajab Singh to the effect that his daughter had gone to purchase some goods from a nearby grocery shop and thereafter, she did not return back home. The FIR was registered against unknown persons by the complainant, who might have taken away daughter of the complainant namely Nikita with some ulterior motive of marrying her.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has been nominated on the basis of extra-judicial confession before Kuldeep Singh (PW-3), which is a weak type of evidence. Learned counsel further submitted that the police has recorded two confessional statements of the petitioner, which are inadmissible in law. During course of investigation, the petitioner and Waseem were arrested on 10.09.2019 and dead body of Nikita was allegedly shown to be recovered by the petitioner and co-accused Waseem. In view of disclosure statements made by the petitioner, the recovery of dead body was effected and the recovery memo did not bear signature of the petitioner. The alleged identification of the place of recovery, would remain debatable as per Evidence Act as the fact already in the knowledge of the police, would not give rise to any such admissible piece of evidence qua the alleged place of recovery. Co-accused Amar Singh was arrested on 12.09.2019. When the FIR was a blind FIR, therefore, the prosecution ought to have conducted test identification parade before the Illaqa Magistrate at the time of their production before the Court.