Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kulwant Dass vs State Of Punjab on 12 March, 2014
Crl. Misc. No.M-4029 of 2014 -: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
1. Crl. Misc. No.M-4029 of 2014
Kulwant Dass ... Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
2. Crl. Misc. No.M-4032 of 2014
Satnam Singh Dass ... Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab ... Respondent
Date of decision: March 12, 2014.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON
Present: Shri M.L. Saggar, Senior Advocate with
Shri Sunny Saggar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Shri KDS Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.
Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.
Petitioner Kulwant Dass and Satnam Singh Dass, confined in Central Jail, Ludhiana, have filed these petitions under Section 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in case FIR No.351 dated 26.10.2011 under Sections 307, 352, 436, 506, 427 and 148 read with Section 149 IPC, registered at Police Station Payal, District Ludhiana.
2. The case pertains to a land dispute. Possession of said land, pursuant to decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India of the year 2000, is claimed to be with Shiromani Gurudwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC). It is claimed that on the festival of Diwali in the year 2011, complainant Kartar Singh, accompanied by four of his associates (constituting task force Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.03.14 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-4029 of 2014 -: 2 :- created by SGPC and which was posted at Gurdwara Manjhi Sahib) was present. At around 3 p.m., they were having meals in their room. The petitioners accompanied by a contingent of about 20 males and 15 females, armed with gandasis, swords and iron rods came there. Two of their associates were having container of kerosene and match boxes. Kulwant Dass and Gurjit Dass, out of them, gave a lalkara and asked their associates (who were approaching towards the complainant and his companions) to burn the complainant and his companions in their room itself by pouring kerosene. When some members of the group started breaking the goods lying inside the said room, other members having containers, sprinkled kerosene on the goods lying there. When complainant and his associates came out, the goods in the room were also put on fire after sprinkling kerosene thereon. It is claimed that this attack was managed by the petitioners with their associates in a bid to get possession of the land from the SGPC. It is the prosecution case that the accused and their associates had also planned self-immolation. The matter was reported on telephone by the complainant (a member of the task force) to Nirmal Singh, Manager of the Gurdwara, who further informed the police.
3. During the course of investigations, it was found that damage had been done to the building, whereas the pillar of verandah had been pulled down and temporary bath room had also been demolished. The petitioners seek bail.
4. Bail applications of the petitioners have been strongly resisted by the respondents, claiming that possession was taken by the SGPC through court of law when warrants of possession had been issued in their favour and thus, they had every right to protect their possession against any onslaught by anyone. It is claimed that except a small constructed portion, possession of the entire land is with the SGPC. It is canvassed that the petitioners had not only set the goods and property of SGPC ablaze, but had even created ruckus overawing the members of the task force and had also Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.03.14 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh Crl. Misc. No.M-4029 of 2014 -: 3 :- tried to burn the complainant and his associates alive.
5. Hearing has been provided while perusing the paper book.
6. Admittedly, the incident took place on 26.10.2011. Thereafter period of approximately two and half years has elapsed and no untoward incident has been reported. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioners had earlier been granted the concession of anticipatory bail. The petitioners were arrested on 27.12.2013, i.e., after more than two years of the alleged occurrence and are behind the bars since then. Number of witnesses of the prosecution is quite high. There is no likely erosion of peace and tranquility in the area. Furthermore, no material has been placed on record to show as to the type of injuries suffered by the complainant party.
7. The petitioner-accused are in custody since 27.12.2013. Trial is not picking up the speed. Early conclusion of the trial is no more, in sight. There is no reason for prolonging the period of incarceration of the accused.
8. Consequently, these petitions are allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana.
9. Nothing expressed herein-above shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.
[Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon] March 12, 2014. Judge kadyan Kadyan Vinod Kumar 2014.03.14 10:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh