Punjab-Haryana High Court
Navtej Pal Singh vs The State Of Punjab on 3 January, 2012
Crl. Misc. No.M-38429 of 2011 1
..
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Criminal Misc. No. M-38429 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of Decision: January 03, 2012
Navtej Pal Singh .... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present Mr. Ajit Atri, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab,
for the State.
Mr. O.P.Kamboj, Advocate,
for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Navtej Pal Singh, petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail by way of this petition brought under section 438 Cr.P.C. in a case registered by way of FIR No. 224 dated 5.10.2011 at Police Station City Ferozepur, District Ferozepur, initially for an offence punishable under section 304-A, but later on converted into section 304 of Indian Penal Code.
The case in brief is that the petitioner, a police constable, had been assigned to Sh. Lakhwinder Singh, Chairman, Market Committee as Gunman and a carbine was allotted to him for the purpose. He along with complainant Yadwinder Singh and the deceased Amritpal as also Crl. Misc. No.M-38429 of 2011 2 ..
some other persons was travelling in an Innova vehicle on 5.10.2011. At about 5.00 PM, the carbine carried by the petitioner on his legs went off and the bullet first went through the right arm of the complainant and went inside the right side of the chest of Amritpal. The vehicle was immediately turned towards Ferozepur. Amritpal was brought to Civil Hospital, Ferozepur, where Amritpal was declared as brought dead.
Initially, the case was registered for an offence punishable under section 304-A IPC. Later on, supplementary statement of Yadwinder Singh, complainant was recorded on which, DDR No.26 was entered on 22.11.2011 at the police station adding section 304 IPC to the case.
I have heard Mr. Ajit Attri, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.D.Sachdeva, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab assisted by Mr. O.P.Kamboj, learned counsel for the complainant. I have gone through the record carefully.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the first version of Yadwinder Singh did not disclose any scuffle between the petitioner and any one else and did not speak of the petitioner firing from his carbine. According to him, it was a simple case of firing of gun shot by rash or negligent handling of the weapon and as the case registered was under section 304-A IPC, the petitioner appeared before the court concerned and was granted bail. According to him, even the weapon of offence stands recovered in this case. He has submitted that the second version came one and a half months later and the same cannot be said to be true. He has submitted that besides the statement of Yadwinder Singh, there are statements of Harjit Singh and Narinder Singh regarding Crl. Misc. No.M-38429 of 2011 3 ..
the scuffle between the petitioner and the victim but their statements cannot be believed because they were not travelling in the vehicle. According to him, it is stated by them that they were told about the occurrence by Yadwinder Singh.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the deceased had boarded the vehicle at about 4.30 PM and the occurrence took place at 5.00 PM. According to him, this circumstance also makes a lot of difference to the case and shows that the offence punishable under section 304 IPC could not be committed by the petitioner.
It is true that there are two versions about the occurrence and the two are separated by a period of 1-1/2 months. The question of prime importance here is as to why the petitioner was carrying the carbine with him when the person to whom, he was assigned, was not travelling with him. Another question that arises for answer is as to why he was carrying the gun loaded, even if he was carrying it in the absence of Lakhwinder Singh. However, answer to these questions would not help the prosecution to establish a case under section 304 IPC. It cannot be said that he had made up his mind to fire a shot at Amritpal before starting the journey. Amritpal boarded the vehicle only at 4.30 PM while the petitioner and others were travelling in the said vehicle from the time, much earlier to that.
It is not a case that the petitioner was cleaning the weapon or was handling it for any other purpose. It cannot be believed that a weapon which has a strong iron strip fitted around the trigger would go off without handling or mis-handling of the same. The weapon like a Crl. Misc. No.M-38429 of 2011 4 ..
carbine should not go off only while being carried on the legs.
Yadwinder Singh has come out with second version. There are, therefore, two versions about the occurrence, the first pointing to accidental fire and the second pointing to intentional fire. There is no reason attributed to Yadwinder Singh for making a false statement later on. The first statement might have been made by Yadwinder Singh either out of an idea to help the petitioner who is a police constable or without understanding the gravity of the incident.
In these circumstances, at least it does not appear to be a case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. The bail application is, consequently, dismissed. The expression of opinion in this order is only for the limited purpose of disposing of this bail application and shall not be considered as an expression on the merits of the case.
(VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE January 03, 2012 som