Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rajwinder Singh vs State Of Punjab on 3 August, 2010
Author: S.S. Saron
Bench: S.S. Saron
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
......
(1) Criminal Misc. No.M-36292 of 2009
.....
Date of decision:3.8.2010
Rajwinder Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
....
(2) Criminal Misc. No.M-36301 of 2009
.....
Gurdas Singh alias Bunty and another
.....Petitioners
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
....
(3) Criminal Misc. No.M-2299 of 2010
.....
Dharam Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
.....Respondent
....
Present: Mr. Sandeep Chopra, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr. T.S. Salana, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the
respondent-State.
.....
S.S. Saron, J.
This order will dispose of Criminal Misc. No.M-36292 of 2009 filed by Rajwinder Singh; Criminal Misc. No.M-36301 of 2009 filed by Cr. Misc. Nos.M-36292 of 2009 etc. [2] Gurdas Singh alias Bunty and another and Criminal Misc. No.M-2299 of 2010 filed by Dharam Singh.
The petitioners in the respective petitions pray for grant of pre- arrest bail in a case registered against them on 24.10.2009 for the offences under Sections 356, 379, 324, 148 and 149 Indian Penal Code (`IPC' - for short); besides, offences under Sections 326 and 307 IPC which, it is stated, are likely to be added.
The FIR (Annexure-P.1 in the respective petitions) has been registered on the statement of Gurpreet Singh. It is alleged by the complainant-Gurpreet Singh that after his studies he helps his father in the work of buffaloes. On 23.10.2009 at 7.30 p.m., in the evening the father of the complainant, namely, Karnail Singh asked him to bring vegetables from the market. The complainant reached Kishan Mandi at Sirhand for purchasing vegetables where he met a boy who was accompanied by his friend. One boy out of them snatched the mobile phone (I-Phone) from his hand and ran away. The complainant chased them and succeeded in catching hold of a boy near the sugar cane vend opposite Amar Banquet Hall. At the said place 4/5 more boys were standing holding Kirpans in their hands. All the persons immediately caught hold of the complainant and started beating him. A boy from amongst them said Raju take the Kirpan and the complainant Gurpreet Singh should not be spared. Then Raju gave a Kirpan blow which hit the complainant on the left cheek. He gave second blow which hit the complainant in the middle of his head. Then Raju said to Rajwinder Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M- 36292 of 2009) that why was he standing and asked him to hold the Kirpan Cr. Misc. Nos.M-36292 of 2009 etc. [3] and do something. Said Rajwinder gave a Kirpan blow on the left ear due to which the left ear of the complainant was amputated. Then Raju asked Ustad Dharam Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-2299 of 2010) to do something. Then said Dharam Singh gave a Kirpan blow which hit the complainant on his back. Then one unknown person gave two Kirpan blows hitting the complainant at two places on his right leg. The complainant then raised an alarm which attracted his friend Hardeep Singh. He came near the complainant in the Mandi and rescued him from the assailants. Then aforesaid Raju, Rajwinder, Dharam Singh and their companions fled away from the spot along with their weapons. Hardeep Singh, the friend of the complainant, chased them but unable to catch them. Then Hardeep Singh called the father of the complainant at the spot who got him admitted at Rajindra Hospital for treatment.
Learned counsel for the petitioners appearing for the respective petitioners in the three petitions have submitted that the allegations as levelled in the FIR are false and frivolous and from a perusal of the same no offence is made out. The FIR, it is submitted, has been lodged to harass the petitioners. The allegations against Rajwinder Singh (petitioner), it is submitted, are false and he has merely become a scapegoat due to his misfortune, otherwise he has no concern whatsoever with the alleged offence. The accused Gurdas Singh alias Bunty and Gurdit Singh alias Billa (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-36301 of 2009) are not named in the FIR and no specific role has been attributed to them. They have been merely dragged into the case at the behest of the complainant. The case against accused Dharam Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-2299 of Cr. Misc. Nos.M-36292 of 2009 etc. [4] 2010) is also false and he has been made scapegoat of misfortune. It is submitted that the ocular version is different from the medical evidence on record. As per the FIR, there are more than 8 injuries said to have been caused by the accused but as per MLR there are only three injuries on the person of the complainant injured. Out of the injuries two are attributed to Raju on the face and the complainant and one is attributed to Rajwinder Singh (petitioner) which is alleged to have been caused on the left ear of the complainant; besides, three injuries attributed to Dharam Singh (petitioner) on the back of the complainant; besides, two unidentified persons have been attributed two injuries on the right leg of the complainant. It is submitted that the prosecution produced another supplementary MLR before the learned Additional Sessions Judge in which the other injuries are shown. It is also submitted that the there is a delay of 16 hours in the registration of the FIR.
In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioners even though they were granted interim bail by this Court, have not been cooperating with the investigation and despite time taken by them they have not joined the investigation.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record. The case of Rajwinder Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-36292 of 2009) is that he was granted interim bail by this Court on 22.12.2009. It was contended that it is a case of reprisal/counter-blast and that the injuries attributed to petitioner Rajwinder Singh regarding amputation of left ear are not borne from the medical evidence. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and Cr. Misc. Nos.M-36292 of 2009 etc. [5] interim bail granted. The case of petitioners Gurdas Singh alias Bunty and Gurdit Singh alias Billa (petitioners in Criminal Misc. No.M-36301 of 2009) was also taken-up on 22.12.2009. It was contended that the names of the petitioners did not figure in the FIR and no role is attributed to them. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued and interim bail granted. The case of Dharam Singh (petitioner in Criminal Misc. No.M-2299 of 2010) was taken-up on 29.1.2010. It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused of the petitioner, namely, Gurdas Singh alias Bunty and Gurdit Singh alias Billa; besides, Rajwinder Singh had filed criminal miscellaneous petitions in this Court in which notice of motion has been issued for 15.2.2010. The petitioner-Dharam Singh, it was stated, had been attributed three injuries on the back of the complainant Gurpreet Singh. However, as per medical report of said Gurpreet Singh there was no injury on his back. Besides, amputation of the left ear of the complainant was not borne out from the medical report and, in any case, the same has been attributed to Rajwinder Singh (petitioner) who has been granted interim bail. Accordingly, notice of motion was issued in the case of Dharam Singh as well and interim bail was granted. The cases were then taken-up on 12.5.2010 on which date it was stated by learned counsel for the State that the petitioners were not giving the mobile phone of the complainant which was snatched at the time of the incident that occurred on 23.10.2009. Counsel for the respective petitioners submitted that they would join the investigation. They were directed to appear before the Investigating Officer and the case was adjourned to 27.7.2010. On the said date, learned counsel for the respective petitioners prayed for one week Cr. Misc. Nos.M-36292 of 2009 etc. [6] more and the case was adjourned for today i.e. 3.8.2010. Today, again learned counsel for the State has submitted that despite time being given to the petitioners to join the investigation, they are not cooperating.
Keeping in view the nature of allegations the role attributed to each of the petitioners and their conduct in snatching the mobile phone of the complainant which has not been recovered till date, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out.
It is well known that considerations governing the grant of pre- arrest bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. are materially different from that seeking post-arrest bail or for that matter even seeking suspension of sentence pending appeal before a higher Court. In a case where pre-arrest bail is sought the advantage of custodial interrogation of eliciting more and useful information and material is to be kept in view. Besides, the exercise of power to grant pre-arrest bail is somewhat extra-ordinary in character.
In the facts and circumstances, no ground for grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petitions are accordingly dismissed.
August 3, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*