Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2777 (PNJ)

Neeraj @ Gini v. State Of Punjab

2006-07-17

RAJIVE BHALLA

body2006
Judgment Rajive Bhalla, J. 1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in case FIR No.156, dated 27.6.2005, registered under Sections 302/120-B/148/149 of the IPC, at Police Station Bagha Purana, District Moga. 2. Inderjit Kaur, a co-accused, lodged the aforementioned FIR, disclosing therein that her husband left the house at about 8.30 pm informing her that he would be back in 10 minutes As he did not come back, she and her family members conducted a search but to no avail. In the morning, they were informed by some body that the dead body of Kulwant Singh was lying in the pits near the canal bridge. She reached the spot and identified the dead body of her husband, which revealed injuries by a sharp edged weapon to the head, neck, face and other parts of the body. During investigation, it was transpired that Kulwant Singh had been murdered by the complainant, his wife, with the help of the petitioner and others. 3. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no direct evidence as to the petitioners involvement in the murder except for an extra-judicial confession, made by his co-accused, before one Jeet Singh, ex-sarpanch of village Ganji Gulab Singh and Balwant Singh, resident of Dharamkot. It is contended that the extra-judicial confession is a fabrication. There was no reason for the petitioner or his co-accused to have confessed before Balwant Singh, resident of Dharamkot, at a distance of about 60 kms. from the petitioners residence. The other incriminating evidence, against the petitioner, is the recovery of a Kapa (a datar like weapon), which has been foisted upon the petitioner. The aforementioned weapon was not sent for chemical analysis. It is further argued that the petitioner has been behind bars for the last about nine months but no witness has been examined by the prosecution. It is further contended that Manjit Kaur, a co- accused, has already been granted regular bail by this Court. 4. Counsel for the petitioner places reliance, in support of his plea for grant of regular bail, upon a judgment of trial Court reported as Harpal Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996(2) RCR (Criminal) 664. 5. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner and his co-accused conspired with the complainant- lnderjit Kaur to commit the murder of Kulwant Singh. 5. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner and his co-accused conspired with the complainant- lnderjit Kaur to commit the murder of Kulwant Singh. Inderjit Kaur had developed an illicit relationship with Ranjit Singh, a co- accused and, therefore, they are known to the petitioner and murdered Kulwant Singh. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. I am unable to accept the contentions, raised by counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner, alongwith his co-accused, planned and executed the murder of Kulwant Singh, the complainants husband. As noticed hereinabove, the complainant developed illicit relations with one Ranjit Singh. She conspired with the petitioner and the other accused to do away with Kulwant Singh. The petitioner was an active participant in this heinous crime. The extra-judicial confession and the recovery of a Kapa, in my considered opinion disentitle the petitioner to the grant of bail. The grant of bail to a co- accused, namely, Manjit Kaur cannot enure to the petitioners benefit, as her role in the murder and the conspiracy is different from the petitioners in the present case. The judgment in Harpal Kaurs case (supra), cited by counsel for the petitioner, has no bearing upon the present controversy. In the aforementioned judgment, the accused was implicated, pursuant to an extra- judicial confession, of a co-accused. No other evidence was available against her. However, in the present case, the petitioner has suffered an extra- judicial confession and got effected the recovery of a Kapa. In this view of the matter, the present petition is dismissed. 8. However, as the petitioner has been behind bars for a considerable period of time and the progress in the trial appears to be minimal, the trial Court is directed to make every endeavour for an expeditious conclusion of the trial, keeping in mind the fact that priority is to be accorded to trials, where accused are behind bars.