High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bogh Singh @ Bogha Singh And … vs The State Of Punjab on 10 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bogh Singh @ Bogha Singh And … vs The State Of Punjab on 10 November, 2009
CRM-M-31464 of 2009                                -1-




       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH
                           ****

Crl. Misc. No.56990 of 2009 and
CRM-M-31464 of 2009
DATE OF DECISION: 10.11.2009
****

Bogh singh @ Bogha Singh and another . . . . Petitioners

VS.

The State of Punjab                                      . . . . Respondent


                         ****

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
****

Present: Mr.R.K. Handa, Advocate for the applicants/petitioners.

****

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN J. (ORAL)

Crl. Misc. No.56990 of 2009

Allowed as prayed for.

CRM-M-31464 of 2009

This is a petition under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) for grant of pre-arrest bail to the

petitioners in case FIR No.91 dated 16.8.2008 registered under

Sections 302, 450 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) at Police

Station Boha, District Mansa.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the

petitioners have been summoned under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. on

the statement of the complainant, when he appeared as PW-1. It is

also submitted that before approaching this Court, petitioners had

applied for pre-arrest bail before the Court below, which has been

dismissed by Sessions Judge, Mansa vide his order dated 29.10.2009.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the

complainant has taken as somersault as initially he had levelled
CRM-M-31464 of 2009 -2-

allegations against Atma Ram and now he has levelled allegations

against the petitioners. He has also submitted that the purpose of

Section 319 Cr.P.C. is to secure the presence of the petitioners, for

which they are ready to appear before the Court below.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners and

keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I found that

petitioner No.1, while appearing as PW-1, has specifically stated that

“There was light of electric bulb. At about 10.00 PM Bogha Singh

armed with Takua and Bhola Singh armed with a Ghop came to our

courtyard through the broken gate of house. I woke up on hearing the

noise. Bogha singh gave 2/3 Kulhari blows again said Takua blows on

the right side of head of my son Sukhwinder Singh while he was lying

on the cot. Bhola Singh gave Ghop blow on the left side of forehead

above the eye. Thereafter both the accused inflicted more blows to my

son Sukhwinder Singh. I and my wife raised alarm. Both these

accused threatened us that we would also have the same consequences

if raised alarm and out of fear I and my wife keep quite. After killing

my son Bogha Singh and Bhola Singh ran away with their weapons.”

In view of the specific allegations against the petitioners

and keeping in view the gravity of the offence, I am not inclined to

grant pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Hence, the present petition is

hereby dismissed.

It is, however, made clear that any observation made

hereinabove shall not be construed to be an expression of opinion on

the merits of the case.




                                             (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
NOVEMBER 10, 2009                                    JUDGE
vivek