IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:21.02.2025 Harpreet Singh ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH Present:- Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amandeep Singh, DAG, Punjab -

SANJAY VASHISTH , J.(ORAL)

1. Instant petition has been filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C., by the petitioner – Harpreet Singh, for seeking regular bail, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, 346, 120-B of IPC, in case FIR No. 112, dated 05.12.2022, registered at Police Station Hathoor, District Ludhiana (Punjab), during the pendency of trial.

2. Case of the prosecution is that on 24.11.2022, deceased Jaspinder Kaur, aged 24 years, went away from the house on her own and on 05.12.2022, complainant Shaminder Singh (brother of the deceased) got lodged FIR in question, about missing of his sister along with 12 tolas of gold and an amount of Rs.20,000/-. On 06.12.2022, Shaminder Singh, gave supplementary statement, stating therein that Parampreet Singh @ Param and Bhawanpreet Singh @ Bhawna, who are real brothers, used to speak to his deceased-sister Jaspinder Kaur and later on, he came to know of the fact that his sister has been murdered by Parampreet Singh @ Param, Bhawanpreet Singh @ Bhawna, Ekampreet Singh and Harpreet Singh.

Besides, prosecution relies upon the disclosure statements of Parampreet Singh @ Param and Ekampreet Singh, that after murdering Jaspinder Kaur, they threw her dead body in to a canal. Since, enough water was not there, the dead body was taken to the fields of Parampreet Singh @ Param and Bhawanpreet Singh @ Bhawna and was put to fire. However, a majorly burnt body was recovered from the fields.

3. Prosecution also relies upon the extra judicial confession made by all the four accused before one Sukhbir Singh s/o Gurmail Singh on 07.12.2022, wherein, the story of prosecution was reiterated to the effect that murder of Jaspinder Kaur was committed by accused by Parampreet Singh @ Param and Ekampreet Singh.

4. Mr. Munish Raj Chaudhary, learned counsel for the petitioner while referring to the case of the prosecution in its entirety, submits that it is an admitted position in the case of the prosecution that petitioner Harpreet Singh, is not involved in any manner in the murder of Jaspinder Kaur. To substantiate the said argument, learned counsel relies upon the status report submitted by the respondent – State of Punjab and refers to paragraph No.6 of the same. Further, he submits that, at best, petitioner can be held liable for committing an offence for wiping of the evidence, which being a bailable offence is punishable under Section 201 of IPC.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that co-accused, namely Bhawanpreet Singh @ Bhawna, has already been ordered to be released on bail vide order dated 10.01.2025 passed in CRM-M 13309-2024 by this Court.

5. On the other hand, learned State counsel has vehemently opposed the prayer made in the petition, however, he does not dispute the factual position as narrated by the petitioner’s counsel. About the stage of trial, learned State counsel submits that petitioner is inside jail since 06^th December, 2022 and after completion of investigation, final report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. has also been submitted and thereafter, out of total 16 prosecution witnesses, six have been examined. Three of these witnesses, are admittedly the prime witnesses of the prosecution. Now, out of the total 16 prosecution witnesses, 09 witnesses remains to be examined.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the relevant material available on record with their able assistance.

7. For reference paragraph No.6 of the reply filed by the State is reproduced here-under:-

“6. That on 6-12-2022 during interrogation, accused Parampreet Singh @ Param gave statement to the I.O. that on 24-11-2022 he along with his friend Ekampreet Singh along