Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhdev Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another ... on 21 July, 2011
Author: Rakesh Kumar Jain
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Jain
CRM-M-17964 of 2011 1
In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh.
CRM-M-17964 of 2011
Decided on July 21,2011
Sukhdev Singh --Petitioner
vs.
State of Punjab and another --Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.APS Deol, Sr.Advocate, for Mr.Vishal R.Lamba,Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. A.S.Rai,DAG, Punjab.
Mr.Naresh Kaushal,Advocate, for the complainant/respondent No.2.
Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This is a petition for regular bail pending trial under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,'Cr.P.C.') in a case registered vide FIR No.100 dated 27.10.2000, under Sections 323,504,342, 355,506, 295-A of the IPC at Police Station, Kurali.
At the very out set, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that except for offence under Section 295-A of the IPC, all other offences are bailable and the maximum sentence for the offence under Section 295- A IPC is three years. He has submitted that even the said offence is not made out against the petitioner because the allegations in that respect are against HC Kuldeep Singh. While giving the background of this case, he CRM-M-17964 of 2011 2 has submitted that one Karnail Kaur made a complaint to the police against Pal Singh complainant regarding a dispute in respect of a plot. The said Pal Singh is alleged to have been picked up by HC Kuldeep Singh along with the present petitioner and was given beatings. Pal Singh filed a private complaint against HC Kuldeep Singh and the petitioner. In the said complaint, the petitioner was summoned. He appeared and was released on bail. Thereafter, in the said complaint, the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender. However, Pal Singh was tried and acquitted under Section 323 of the IPC but convicted under Sections 342/506 of the IPC and was released on probation. He also submits that on the basis of an enquiry conducted by S.D.M, Kharar, the present FIR was registered on 27.10.2000.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had left for U.S.A. on 11.9.2000 for a decade and did not return. Thereafter, as soon as he came to India and he found that the present FIR has been registered against him after his departure, he surrendered before the Court below and was taken into custody. It is submitted by him that the petitioner had applied for bail before the trial Court which was dismissed on the ground that he was declared proclaimed offender and has been absconding. Thereafter, he had tried his luck before the Sessions Court where his bail application was also dismissed on the same ground.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner was living in U.S.A. and was not declared proclaimed offender in the present case, his bail application should not have been declined by the Court below. But at the same time, he has stated that the present complaint and the FIR have been clubbed together. He has referred to a CRM-M-17964 of 2011 3 decision of this Court in the case of Mehar Singh & Anr. Vs. State of Punjab 2010 (2) RCR (Criminal) 167 in which the accused was residing in Canada before registration of FIR. There was no attempt made by the Court to serve the accused in Canada . This Court held that the accused cannot be declared proclaimed offender. Even otherwise, learned counsel submits that the petitioner had no idea that the present FIR would be registered against him after a period of two years from the date of occurrence, otherwise he would not have left the country.
Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 22.4.2011 and is ready to deposit his passport to remove the apprehension of the complainant that he would again abscond and is also ready to give an undertaking that he would appear before the Court below on each and every date of hearing and may be released with heavy surety.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the conduct of the petitioner is such that he does not deserve the concession of bail as he has appeared before the Court below after a decade. He has also submitted that there is no error in the opinion expressed by the Court below while declining bail to the petitioner.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record from which I have found that the main allegation is against HC Kuldeep Singh who has been tried by the Court below. He was acquitted for the offence under Section 323 of the IPC but convicted for the offences under Sections 342 and 506 of the IPC. Insofar as Section 295-A of the IPC is concerned, the same is attributed to HC Kuldeep Singh only and the petitioner was declared proclaimed offender in the complaint case CRM-M-17964 of 2011 4 and not in the present FIR because the petition that the petitioner had already left for U.S.A before registration of the FIR and there was no attempt by the prosecution for declaring him proclaimed offender in the said case.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case and also the nature of offence, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds with heavy surety. He would surrender his passport to the Court and would appear on each and every date as undertaken and would not misuse the concession of bail.
July 21,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge