Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaswinder Singh Gill vs State Of Punjab on 5 February, 2009
Author: Rajan Gupta
Bench: Rajan Gupta
CRM Nos. M-2087 & M-777 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB &
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
1- CRM No. M-2087 of 2009
Date of decision: 5.2.2009
Jaswinder Singh Gill ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
2- CRM No. M-777 of 2009
Date of decision: 5.2.2009
Hardeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA
Present: Mr. N.S. Swaitch, Advocate and
Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocates for the petitioners.
Mr. Shailesh Gupta, DAG, Punjab.
Rajan Gupta, J.
This order of mine shall dispose of above mentioned two applications filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail on behalf of Jaswinder Singh Gill and Hardeep Singh as the same have arisen out of a common First Information Report No.62 dated 4th May, 2008, under Sections 307, 324, 323, 120-B, read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sirhind, District Fatehgarh Sahib.
Learned counsel for the petitioners have mainly contended that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and in fact they have been falsely implicated in this case. They thus deserve the concession of CRM Nos. M-2087 & M-777 of 2009 2 anticipatory bail. Moreover, the petitioners cannot be roped in on the basis of statement of co-accused.
Learned counsel for the State has, however, opposed the grant of anticipatory bail on the ground that two persons namely, Nishan Singh and Sandeep Singh, who were arrested in another case under Sections 379, 420 IPC, registered against them at Police Station Bassi Pathana, had clearly stated before the police that the petitioners Hardeep Singh and Jaswinder Singh had committed the crime. According to the counsel, the said accused had taken 'Supari' for killing the complainant due to some dispute which had originated in Australia.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
A perusal of the FIR shows that the complainant, who is otherwise settled in Australia, had come to Punjab on 8th March, 2008. On 1st May, 2008 at about 8.30 P.M. when he, after purchasing shoes for his children, entered his car, at that time one fashionable young man came from behind. He held his neck and inflicted his krich blow on his face and thereafter a second blow by the same weapon on right side of his stomach. While trying to defend himself, he received injuries on his right hand as well. The complainant was thereafter taken to Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib from where he was referred to P.G.I. Chandigarh for treatment, but on the way his condition deteriorated and as such he was admitted in Shivalik Hospital, Mohali and was discharged from there.
In view of the fact that allegations against the petitioners CRM Nos. M-2087 & M-777 of 2009 3 are very serious in nature, I am of the considered view that they do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail. It may not be possible for the investigating agency to investigate the matter effectively in case the petitioners are armed with a protective order from this Court. Moreover, weapons of offence are yet to be recovered from the petitioners.
An additional ground has been pressed on behalf of the petitioner Jaswinder Singh that his one leg is polio stricken and thus he could not have participated in the crime.
However, learned State counsel (on instructions from Investigating Officer who is present in Court) has stated that the said accused was driving the car which was used in the crime. According to the counsel accused Jaswinder Singh faces no difficulty in driving a car.
In the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view that the accused-petitioners Jaswinder Singh and Hardeep Singh are not entitled to concession of anticipatory bail.
Both these petitions are, therefore, dismissed.
(RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE February 5, 2009 'rajpal'