NAVJOT @ NAVI @ BABLU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for release of the petitioner in terms thereof in a case registered vide FIR No.236 dated 23.10.2008 under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC, at Police Station Salem Tabri, District Ludhiana. The facts of the case are that complainant Ashok Kumar suffered statement before the police on 23.10.2008 that his brother Vijay Kumar along with his family was residing on rent in House No.390, Mohalla Hira Nagar, Kakowal Road, Ludhiana and was engaged in real estate business. On 13.9.2008 Mahi Pal, Ranjit Singh and Gurdeep Singh, residents of Basant Vihar had a fight with Bablu, Sonu, Baba Bindri, Monu Suniara, Ghessi and others at Mohalla Basant Vihar Extension, Ludhiana regarding which a case was registered at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana under Section 307 IPC. In that case his brother Vijay Kumar was the witness as he had suffered a statement before the police and due to this reason the accused were nursing a grudge against his brother. Naresh Bala, mother of Sonu had also got marked an inquiry and SP (City-I) had got served a notice upon his brother on 22.10.2008 to join the inquiry and pursuant to said notice his brother had gone to attend the inquiry on his motorcycle bearing registration No.PB-10-BF-8978 but thereafter he never returned his home. Thereafter, he searched for his brother at his own level and on receipt of some information he along with his brother Rakesh Kumar went to the vacant plot situated near fruit mandi and saw the dead body of his brother Vijay Kumar. There were marks of injuries with sharp edged weapon on the dead body. Mobile phone No.9814710997 was also missing. The complainant also stated that he suspected that his brother Vijay Kumar was killed by Bablu, Jasvir alias Baba Bindri, Monu Suniara and others. On the basis of his statement a case under Section 302/34 IPC was registered.

(2.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even though his named is mentioned in the FIR but the same has been recorded only on the basis of suspicion. He further contended that the complainant, who has already been examined as PW1, has not supported the prosecution version and when subjected to crossexamination by the prosecution he did not vary his statement. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State of Punjab while opposing the prayer for bail of the petitioner has stated that since the petitioner is involved in the commission of a serious offence, he does not deserve the concession of bail. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be allowed considering the fact that the complainant while appearing as PW1 has not supported the case of the prosecution and also the fact that coaccused of the petitioner have already been granted bail. Consequently, the present petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail under the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. Bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana. Nothing stated herein shall be construed to be an expression on the merits of the case.