SURJIT SINGH @ SITI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This order shall dispose of the instant petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking benefit of regular bail to the petitioner pending trial in case FIR No.325 dated 31.05.2015, under Section 346 IPC (Sections 302/201/120-B/34 of IPC added later on), registered at Police Station Ratia.

(2.) Counsel for the parties have been heard.

(3.) FIR came to be registered on the statement of Mukhtiar Singh. Deceased is Ronumal i.e. son of the complainant. As per initial version of the complainant, Ronumal (deceased) had come to the village on 29.05.2015 to attend the marriage of a relative and had gone missing since 30.05.2015. In spite of a search having been carried out, he could not be located and hence the complaint on the suspicion that some unknown persons had detained him. Apparently, the complainant on the following day i.e. 01.06.2015, has got a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and wherein he states that in the evening of 31.05.2015 after having got registered FIR No.325 under Section 346 of IPC he had reached the house of Kaushalya and whereupon shoes of the deceased were found on the roof of the house. One Gurjit Kaur was questioned and who disclosed that she had given one pair of white chappal to him for wearing. Thereafter upon reaching Bhakhra Canal hawai chappal of white colour was noticed as also some traces of blood. Against such backdrop complainant Mukhtiar Singh voiced a suspicion that his son Ronumal had been killed by Gurjit Kaur, Amrik Singh, Kaushalya Devi and Sukhwinder Singh by hatching a conspiracy with each other.