KULDEEP SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Sec. 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.85 dtd. 4/8/2022 under Sec. 364 of the IPC (Ss. 302, 201, 120-B of the IPC added later on) registered at Police Station Bareta, District Mansa.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the false implication of the petitioner in the case in hand is evident from the fact that while lodging the FIR in question, the complainant (father of the deceased) had categorically alleged that it was co-accused Jagdev Singh, who had lured the deceased to accompany him on the fateful day on the pretext of consuming liquor. Learned counsel, in support, has drawn the attention of this Court to the FIR, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1. He has further submitted that while lodging the FIR, no suspicion much less by way of a whisper was raised qua the involvement of the petitioner in the murder of deceased Jagsir Ram; it was after four days of the registration of FIR, a statement was recorded by PW Satgur Singh, who stated that he had seen the deceased accompanying co-accused Jagdev Singh and the petitioner, soon before the deceased went missing. Learned counsel has still further submitted that there was no cogent much less convincing evidence on record to link the petitioner with the crime in question and furthermore, since the case in hand rests on circumstantial evidence, even motive to commit the crime, had not been attributed to the petitioner but to co-accused Jagdev Singh. Learned counsel has still further submitted that PW Satgur Singh, who was a witness of last seen and in whose statement, the petitioner named as an accused, had not been appearing before the trial Court to get his evidence recorded, as a result of which the case had to be adjourned by the trial Court on as many as 7 occasions. Learned counsel has thus prayed for enlarging the petitioner on bail as firstly he has clean antecedents, coupled with the fact that since the complainant has already been examined, there can be no likelihood of the petitioner intimidating or influencing the witnesses.

(3.) Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, on instructions from ASI Sukhdev Singh, has not been able to controvert the contents of the FIR, which has been annexed as Annexure P-1. He, on further instructions, has also not disputed that no suspicion was raised qua the involvement of the petitioner in the murder of deceased and it was only after four days of the registration of the FIR, the petitioner came to be nominated as an accused on the basis of a statement recorded under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C. by PW Satgur Singh (witness of last seen). Learned State counsel submits that while recording his statement under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C., PW Satgur Singh had categorically stated that he had seen the deceased in the company of co-accused Jagdev Singh and Kuldeep Singh. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a canal.