DARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD counsel for both the sides. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the name of the petitioner was originally mentioned in the FIR, he was not charge-sheeted at all. He further contends that on the evidence of one Kashmir Singh that the petitioner and three others had come and made extra judicial confession about the killing of the deceased, the petitioner has been summoned by means of non-bailable warrants. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Amrik Singh the deceased left 17.4.1998 for a tour and on 18.5.98, a report was lodged at Police Station Mukandpur that he was missing and on 19.5.98, the complainant came to know that there was a skeleton of an unidentified person at Jawalamukhi in Himachal Pradesh. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 26.6.98, the complainant received the bones of the deceased and according to the complainant, on 1.7.98, one Rattan Singh met him and told him that Kamaljit Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur daughters of Prem Singh and some unidentified persons were seen with the deceased. He contends that even at that time, petitioner's name was not mentioned. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on 15.7.98, Kashmir Singh had disclosed about the alleged extra judicial confession made by the two ladies - Kamaljit Kaur and Sarabjit Kaur only and even at that time he had not mentioned about the petitioner making any extra judicial confession. He also contends that the petitioner is a 70 years old man, and therefore, he is entitled to be released on bail.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that before making the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., Kashmir Singh had told the complainant that the petitioner had also made an extra judicial confession, but in his Section 161 statement he had changed his version. He further contends that at the time of evidence before the Court, now the said Kashmir Singh has stated that the petitioner is also one of the persons who made the extra judicial confession to him regarding the killing of the deceased. Therefore, he contends that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.