Judgment

Mrs. Manjari Nehru Kaul, J.

The petitioner is seeking the concession of bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in case FIR No.04 dated 17.01.2022 under Sections 302 , 458, 460, 380, 201 and 120-B of the IPC registered at Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, Police District Batala, District Gurdaspur.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while drawing the attention of this Court to the allegations levelled in the FIR which has been annexed as Annexure P-1, submits that a perusal of the same reveals that it is a case resting on circumstantial evidence and it was registered against unknown persons wherein the complainant stated that his father had been murdered with the intention to commit theft. However, subsequently a new twist was given on the basis of an extra judicial confession allegedly made by co-accused Paramjit Kaur (daughter-in-law of the deceased) wherein she spelt out the alleged motive to get the deceased eliminated. As per the extra judicial confession, the deceased was keeping an evil eye on her and hence she took the help of co-accused Kuldip Singh with whom she was allegedly in a relationship, to eliminate the deceased. While drawing the attention of this Court to the aforesaid extra judicial confession which has been annexed as Annexure P-2, learned counsel has further submitted that the petitioner was not named therein and it was only stated that co-accused Kuldip Singh along with his accomplice murdered the deceased. It has been further contended that it was in the disclosure statement suffered by co-accused Kuldip Singh, the petitioner was for the first time named as having accompanied him to the house of the deceased at the time of the crime in question. Learned counsel has argued that the evidentiary value of such disclosure statement is of a weak nature coupled with the fact that the motive to commit the crime if at all lay with co-accused Kuldip Singh and not him. Still further, all this would have to be appreciated in the light of there was no occasion much less any compelling reason for co-accused Paramjit Kaur to make any extra judicial confession since the FIR was registered against unknown persons and no suspicion was raised against her and co-accused Kuldip Singh. Still further, it has been urged that it was also a matter of record that all the stolen articles including jewellery were allegedly recovered from the possession of co-accused Kuldip Singh pursuant to his disclosure statement and not even a single stolen item was recovered from the possession of the petitioner. Learned counsel has, therefore, urged that in the facts and circumstances, since the petitioner has now been in custody since 10.02.2022 and after the charges were framed not even a single prosecution witness out of the 29 cited has been examined, further incarceration of the petitioner would not serve any useful purpose.

3. Per contra, learned State counsel while opposing the prayer and submissions made by the counsel opposite, has submitted that no doubt the petitioner was not named in the FIR in question nor any stolen article recovered from his possession, however, it had come in the extra judicial confession of co-accused Paramjit Kaur that her father-in-law i.e. the deceased had been keeping an evil eye on her, which fact she disclosed to co-accused Kuldip Singh with whom she had been in an illicit relationship. Thereafter, in order to teach the deceased a lesson, Paramjit Kaur along with Kuldip Singh had conspired to eliminate the deceased. When co-accused Kuldip Singh went to the house of the deceased on the fateful day and committed the crime, he was acco