The decision to grant bail was influenced by the nature of the accusation, evidence against the petitioners, and the anticipated trial timeline, without commenting on the case's merits.

JUDGMENT

Arun Kumar Tyagi, J. (Oral). - (The cases has been taken up for hearing through video conferencing.)

2. Petitioner-Jaswinder Singh @ Amna has filed CRM-M-48177-2019 and petitioner-Jaspal Singh @ Pala Granthi has filed CRM-M-29598-2020 under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the Cr.P.C") for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.34 dated 04.04.2019 registered under sections 201, 302 and 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the IPC") in Police Station Hathur, District Ludhiana (Rural).

3. The above said FIR was registered on statement of Bhajan Singh. In his statement Bhajan Singh inter alia alleged that on 06.03.2019 his son Sony Singh left the house and telephonically informed him that he was going out of station due to business and would not come in the night. Sony Singh did not return for many days on which they started searching for him and lodged missing report No.19 dated 14.03.2019 in Police Station Hathur. His nephew Avtar Singh told him that Sony Singh met him on 06.03.2019 at about 07:30 P.M. near Bangran (Sath) Chowk and told him that he had love affair with Amarjit Kaur @ Bholi who had called him to her house from whom he was to take back borrowed amount. In view of the said information and from the enquiry conducted by him, he was sure that Amarjit Kaur @ Bholi, her husband Granthi Jaspal Singh and their elder son Jaswinder Singh @ Amna called his son Sony Singh at their house and killed him due to illicit relations of Sony Singh with Amarjit Kaur and concealed his dead body. Pursuant to registration of FIR, the police investigated the case. During investigation, decomposed dead body was recovered from canal in the area of village Samalsar, District Moga which was cremated unidentified. The dead body was identified from the photographs and remains by the complainant to be that of his son Sony Singh despite the fact that in the post mortem report the dead body was stated to be that of a middle aged female. Sample of burnt bone sent to FSL, Punjab SAS Nagar (Mohali) was returned due to lack of requisite testing facility but the same was not sent to some other FSL by the Police. The petitioners were arrested in the case and recovery of T-shirt and the lower of deceased Sony Singh, electric wire and chunni was allegedly made from their possession in accordance with their disclosure statements.

4. The petitioners being in custody have filed the present petitions for grant of regular bail.

5. The petitions have been opposed by learned State Counsel in terms of status report and additional reply filed by way of affidavit of Sukhnaaz Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division Raikt, Police District Ludhiana (Rural) in CRM-M-48177-2019.

6. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, vide order dated 16.12.2020 passed in CRM-M-48177-2019, presence of Director, FSL, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab and Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural), concerned SHO and investigating officer of the case before this Court through video conferencing was ordered.

7. In compliance with the above said order, Mr. Charanjit Singh Sohal, IPS, SSP, Ludhiana (Rural), Mr. Sukhnaaz Singh, PPS, DSP Raikot, Ms. Arshpreet Kaur Grewal, SI/SHO, P.S. Hathur and Mr. Tarsem Singh, ASI/LR P.S. Hathur and Dr. Seema Sharda, Director, FSL, Punjab and Dr. Sanjiv Kumar, Scientific Officer, Serology, Punjab have appeared before this Court through video conferencing.

8. Director, FSL, SAS Nagar, Mohali has submitted that sample of burnt bone sent to FSL was returned as in such case autosomal STR analysis could not yield DNA profile and was not suitable method for analysis and the same could be analysed using mitouchondrial DNA analysis which was not available at FSL, SAS Nagar, Mohali, Punjab.

9. Mr. Charanjit Singh Sohal, Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana (Rural) has submitted that on return the sample was not sent for DNA analysis as the complainant and his family me