JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

1. This is a first petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 195 dated 10.09.2021, under Sections 302, 460, 459, 307, 34 and 120-B IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station Passiana, District Patiala.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has been in custody since 05.04.2023 and the investigation in the present case has been completed and there are 28 prosecution witnesses, out of which, only one witness has been partly examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is further submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR and the said FIR was recorded on the statement of Paramjit Kaur, who is the complainant as well as the injured in the incident and in the said statement, the said Paramjit Kaur had specifically named four persons, who according to her, had come to the place where she along-with her deceased sister, namely, Kulwinder Kaur resided and had stated that out of the said four persons, two had fired gunshots at the complainant and her sister and other two persons had accompanied them and that she had seen all the said four persons. It is further submitted that the said complainant had not named any other person other than the said four persons. It is argued that the said complainant, who is also an injured and is a star witness in the case, had been examined as PW1 and in her examination-in-chief, she had reiterated the version given in the FIR and had specifically named the said four persons and had not named the present petitioner. It is argued that the petitioner is sought to be implicated on the basis of an alleged disclosure statement, which has been allegedly made by the accused Dalwinder Singh and Tarsem Singh in another FIR No. 303 dated 10.09.2021, under Sections 307, 34 and 120-B IPC, registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala and even as per the said statement, it is not the case of the prosecution that the petitioner had fired the gun shot and it is only alleged against the petitioner that he, along with co-accused Harvinder Singh @ Sattu, had arranged a pistol which was used in the crime. It is submitted that even the said pistol has not been recovered from the petitioner. It is further submitted that the said Harvinder Singh @ Sattu, who is similarly placed as the present petitioner, has already been granted the concession of regular bail by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 14.02.2024 passed in CRM-M-55378-2023. It is, thus, prayed that the petitioner deserves the concession of regular bail.

3. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present application for grant of regular bail to the present petitioner and has referred to the affidavit of Guriqbal Singh, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub-Division Samana, District Patiala, more so, para 12 of the said affidavit, which gives the details of the evidence against the petitioner. The para 12 of the said affidavit which has been highlighted is reproduced as under: -

"12. EVIDENCE AGAINST THE PETITIONER: - That accused Dalvinder Singh and Tarsem Singh in another case/FIR No. 303 dated 10.09.2021 under Sections 307, 34, 120-B IPC registered at Police Station Civil Lines, Patiala suffered a disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, in which they have detailed the conspiracy of Ram Ratan alias Ram Kumar (petitioner) and co-accused Harvinder Singh alias Sattu in committing the murder of Kulwinder Kaur (deceased). Moreover, in the instant case, from the disclosure statement recorded by the co-accused Dalvinder Singh, the detailed conspiracy entered into light between the Ram Ratan alias Ram Kumar (petitioner) and co-accused Harvinder Singh alias Sattu and Tarsem Singh in the murder of Kulwinder Kaur and moreover, the Pistol with which the fire was shot upon Kulwinder Kaur was also got arranged by the Ram Ratan alias Ram Kumar