Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 22 March, 2012
Author: Ram Chand Gupta
Bench: Ram Chand Gupta
CRM No.M-33957 of 2011 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No. M- 33957 of 2011(O&M)
Date of Decision: March 22, 2012.
Dalbir Singh.
...... PETITIONER(s)
Versus
State of Punjab and another.
...... RESPONDENT (s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr. Rajinder Sharma,
Advocate, for the petitioner.
Ms. Simsi Dhir Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
Mr. Mahipal Singh,
Advocate, for respondent no.2.
*****
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition has been filed for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Code of Criminal Procedure in cross case registered against the petitioner under Sections 326/325/34 IPC in FIR No.66 dated 05.06.2005, under Sections 307/324/148/149 IPC, registered at police station Goindwal Sahib, District Amritsar.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned CRM No.M-33957 of 2011 2 Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar dismissing anticipatory bail application filed by the petitioner.
Coordinate Bench of this Court while issuing notice of motion on 14.11.2011 passed the following order:-
"Petitioner apprehends arrest in a case which was registered as cross-version case on the basis of an occurrence dated June 5, 2005. FIR No.66 dated June 5, 2005 was registered under Section 307 IPC against Balwant Singh, Darshan Singh, Charanjit Singh, Tarsem Singh and Sarabjit Singh. In the same FIR, cross-version was recorded on the statement of Dalbir Singh alleging that petitioner alongwith Surjit Singh, Charanjit Singh, Shamsher Singh and Balwinder Singh had inflicted injuries on the person of Sarabjit Singh. Petitioner claims that he is holder of POI Card which entitles him to Visa free entry during the validity of the said card in Germany. The petitioner has placed on record a copy of the judgment passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, in the cross-version case decided on March 10, 2006 acquitting all the accused as all the three injured eye-witnesses including the complainant had resiled from their statements and had not supported the case of the prosecution. The Additional Sessions Judge, has made an observation while acquitting all the accused that special note be given on the index of the file that file shall not be destroyed as one of the accused i.e. the present petitioner is a proclaimed offender in the case and proceedings against him shall be taken up whenever he is arrested.
Counsel for the petitioner is not aware whether any order under Section 299 Cr.P.C. was passed by the trial Court while recording the evidence in the cross-version cases. From the facts and circumstances of the case, prima facie it is apparent that on account of acquittal of the co-accused on the basis of the CRM No.M-33957 of 2011 3 statements of complainant and injured persons who turned hostile, the fate of the petitioner would have been same as that of his co-accused. When questioned as to why the petitioner could not have moved an application before the Sessions Court, it has been submitted that since the observations have been made by Additional Sessions Judge, (the trial Court) ordering the initiation of proceedings against the petitioner as and when he is arrested, the petitioner petitioner has not approached the Sessions Court. It has also been submitted that the petitioner is even ready to appear before the Court and face the consequences.
Notice of motion for December 8, 2011.
Meanwhile, an interim direction is issued that the petitioner will appear before the trial Court/successor Court of the trial Judge Sh.Manoharjit Singh Randhawa, who was Additional Sessions Judge, on March 10, 2006 on November 26, 2011 and in case of his doing so, he will be released on interim bail to the satisfaction of the said Court.
The State will inform whether in view of the abovesaid circumstances, the prosecution agency has got an intention to present the supplementary challan in the cross-version case against the petitioner. If any compromise has been arrived at, counsel for the petitioner will place the same on record."
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has already appeared before learned trial Court pursuant to said order and released on interim bail. It has also been stated that moreover dispute has since been settled between petitioner and respondent no.2.
Learned counsel for the State has not disputed these facts. There are no allegations on behalf of the State that petitioner is CRM No.M-33957 of 2011 4 likely to abscond or that he is likely to dissuade the witnesses from deposing true facts in the Court, if released on bail.
Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the anticipatory bail application filed on behalf of Dalbir Singh is accepted and order dated 14.11.2011 granting interim bail in favour of the petitioner is, hereby, made absolute subject to any conditions that may deem to be imposed by learned trial Court.
The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.
( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) March 22, 2012. JUDGE 'om'