JUDGMENT Mr. Inderjit Singh, J.: - The petitioner has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.610 dated 7.12.2006 registered for the offences under Sections 302, 201 and 34 IPC at Police Station Nuh, District Mewat. 2. Notice of motion has been issued in this case. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Deputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for the respondent-State as well as learned counsel for complainant-respondent No.2 and have gone through the record. 4. From the record, I find that earlier the petitioner was granted regular bail by this Court vide order 10.7.2013. 5. As per prosecution version, the petitioner has been nominated in the present case on the statement of co-accused Aarif. The FIR is of 7.12.2006. Earlier the case was filed as untraced. Later on, co-accused Aarif was apprehended in another case by the Police, where he made disclosure statement regarding the involvement of the petitioner in the present case. Later on, an application had been filed by complainant-respondent No.2 Gulzar Ahmed under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. that the present petitioner gives him threats and pressurizing him for compromise, therefore, the bail granted to Sabir-petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 2.4.2014 passed by this Court on this ground. 6. Now at the time of arguments, it has been brought to my notice that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh has already released co-accused Aarif on bail by considering all these facts regarding threats etc. given to the complainant. Therefore, the main accused, on whose disclosure statement, the present petitioner has been involved, is already released on bail. Secondly, it is also brought to my notice that the complainant has already been examined as a witness in the present case, therefore, now there is no chance of tampering with his evidence or pressurizing him to compromise the matter by giving the statement in his favour in the Court. Thirdly, it has also been brought to my notice that regarding the recovery of head on the basis of disclosure statement of the co-accused, the DNA test has not confirmed that it is the head of the son of the complainant. The headless body had already been recovered when the FIR was registered. 7. The petitioner is not required for interrogation and investigation purposes as he is in judicial custody. Nothing is to be recovered from him. The headless body had already been recovered when the FIR was registered. 7. The petitioner is not required for interrogation and investigation purposes as he is in judicial custody. Nothing is to be recovered from him. The trial of the case will take long time. No useful purpose will be served by keeping the petitioner in custody till the final disposal of the case. 8. Therefore, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case, this criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- with two sureties in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court/Duty Court. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————