T.P.S. Mann, J. - (1.) PRAYER made in the petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner during the pendency of the trial of the case arising out of FIR No. 22 dated 13.2.2013 under Sections 302/201 IPC registered at Police Station Bhondsi, Gurgaon.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that the FIR was lodged by Mahesh, who stated that his brother Narinder went missing on 9.2.2013. On 13.2.2013, he noticed the dead body of his brother. According to him, some unidentified persons had killed his brother. Accordingly, on the basis of the aforementioned statement, the FIR was registered. It is also submitted that the case is of a blind murder. During the investigation of the case, evidence of last seen was collected. However, PW2 Ajit and PW3 Subhash, who were the witnesses of the last seen, did not support the case of the prosecution and were got declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor. PW1 Ramphal, who had identified the dead body and was to depose about Ajit and Subhash contacting him and informing about having last seen the petitioner with the deceased, also did not support the case of the prosecution. Further, complainant -Mahesh, who had lodged the FIR, while appearing as PW4 deposed that he knew nothing about the case and the police never recorded his statement. Accordingly, he was also got declared hostile. Dhani Ram, father of the deceased, was also examined by the prosecution as PW5 but he also did not support the case of the prosecution and was declared hostile. It is submitted that apart from the aforementioned evidence, there is no other piece of evidence collected by the prosecution to connect the petitioner with the crime. The petitioner is in custody since 15.2.2013. Out of twenty witnesses cited by the prosecution, more than a dozen are yet to be examined. All those witnesses, who are yet to be examined, are mainly official witnesses. Therefore, the petitioner be granted the concession of bail.
(3.) LEARNED State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner by submitting that though the various witnesses already examined by the prosecution have not supported its case but the testimony of the official witnesses, who are yet to be examined, may be sufficient to connect the petitioner with the commission of crime. He, however, confirms the fact that out of twenty witnesses cited by the prosecution, five have already been examined while the sixth one given up. One witness from the public, namely, Muni Ram, who had identified the dead body, is yet to be examined.;