The main legal point established in the judgment is the reliance on evidence such as the last seen theory, DNA profiling, and mobile tower location to establish a prima facie case against the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

Vivek Singh Thakur, J. - Petitioner has approached this Court for regular bail, under Section 439 Cr.P.C., in case FIR No. 277 of 2018 dated 12.6.2018, registered in Police Station Sadar Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh under Sections 302, 323, 120-B IPC read with Section 34 IPC.

2. Status report stands filed wherein it is stated that Aman (complainant), son of Shri Yashpal, had made a statement under Section 154 Cr.P.C. stating therein that on 7.6.2018 he was coming back home from field after cutting grass and at about 6.30 PM when he reached near brick kiln in village Malahat, he had found his paternal uncle (Tau) Kushal Kumar (now deceased) consuming liquor along with accused Dharmender, accused Ravinder and accused Rakesh Kumar (petitioner) and when he asked his uncle to come with him to go home, Dharmender accused had asked the complainant to leave the place as they had to take more liquor yet. Complainant had further stated that they were living in joint family and after taking meal, he had gone to bed and on 8th June, 2018 at about 7.40 AM, co-villager Devinder Kumar had informed telephonically complainant's brother Vikas that dead body of his uncle was lying in field. It was further disclosed by complainant that a few days ago, accused Dharmender was caught by his wife red handed, wandering with another lady, and because of which Dharmender was detained in Police Station for one night and Dharmender was suspecting that complainant's uncle (now deceased Kushal Kumar) had informed Dharmender's wife about that and therefore, out of malice, Dharmender along with his friends Ravinder Kumar and Rakesh Kumar (petitioner) had conspired and murdered his uncle after intoxicating him.

3. It is further stated in status report that at about 7 PM on 8.6.2018, accused, named in statement of complainant, were arrested and since then, after remaining in police custody, they are in judicial custody.

4. According to status report, after postmortem, the Medical Officer has opined that cause of death in this case, in his opinion, was 'B/C chest wall trauma associated with liver injury caused by blunt force impact, likely to cause death in ordinary course.'

5. During investigation, as per status report, on the basis of call details recorder obtained along with details of tower, location of all three accused has been found in Malahat, i.e. the spot of incident.

6. It is also reported in status report that human blood of Group 'A' was detected on blood stained piece of brick, blood stained stone, blood stained soil and clothes of deceased Kushal Kumar and blood traces were also detected on clothes of accused Ravinder Kumar and Dharmender Singh, whereas blood was not detected on T-shirt and Capri of accused Rakesh Kumar.

7. It is also stated in status report that as per report received from State FSL with respect to DNA profiling, DNA profile obtained from blood stained piece of brick, stone and soil matches with DNA profile obtained from blood samples of deceased Kushal Kumar and a mixed DNA profile was obtained from pyjama of accused Ravinder Kumar from which one component matched with DNA profile obtained from blood sample of deceased Kushal Kumar and that DNA obtained from T-shirt of accused Dharmender was not found consistent with DNA obtained from blood sample of deceased Kushal Kumar.

8. Challan in this case was presented in Court on 4.9.2018 and trial is pending. It is informed by learned Additional Advocate General that next date in trial is 2.9.2020 fixed for further order and statements of 23 witnesses have been recorded, whereas statements of 17 witnesses, including one material witness Aman (complainant), who shall depose with respect to involvement of accused in commission of offence, are yet to be recorded.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner has been involved on the basis of statement of complainant whereby he had claimed that accused was lastly seen with petitioner, Dharmender and Ravinder but