CRM M-12431 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM No.22929 of 2009 in
CRM M-12431 of 2009
Date of Decision: 25.8.2009
Ravinder Singh and another
....Petitioners.
Vs.
State of Punjab
..Respondent.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG Punjab for the State/respondent.
Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with
Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioners have applied for grant of anticipatory bail in
case registered vide FIR No.126 dated 28.6.2008 under Sections 302, 201,
382 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh,
District Fatehgarh Sahib.
The aforesaid FIR was registered by Tarsem Singh in which he
had alleged that his son Amrinder Singh alias Midha has been killed by
Satpal and Rajinder Singh alias Jindra. In the said case, Satpal (since
deceased) made a statement on 2.7.2008 before the police as well as before
JMIC that while he was fired at by Amrinder Singh alias Midha, Ravinder
Singh alias Rubi (petitioner No.1) gave a Kirpan blow which landed on his
left hand as a result of which, he received injuries on his finger adjoining
his thumb. At that time, Maninder Singh alias Mintu (petitioner No.2) was
CRM M-12431 of 2009 -2-
also present there.
Both the petitioners have been summoned on an application
filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 10.4.2009 (Annexure P-3)
through warrants of arrest. The petitioners had thus, filed a petition for grant
of anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by
Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 27.4.2009.
Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there is
no reference of the petitioners in the FIR registered by Tarsem Singh
(Annexure P-1), neither in the statement (Annexure P-2) nor in the
statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Satpal (deceased) has only
referred to an injury caused with Kirpan by petitioner No.1 and the presence
of petitioner No.2. He further submitted that no fatal injury has been caused
by the petitioners who have already been granted interim bail by this Court
and are appearing before the Court below regularly without there being any
allegation of absence or tampering with evidence or misusing the
concession of bail.
As against this, counsel for the complainant has submitted that
the petitioners have not challenged the order of summoning (Annexure P-3),
therefore, the petitioners cannot find fault in the said order. Moreover, it is
submitted by him that even in the enquiry report of DSP Amloh dated
4.8.2008 and SSP Fatehgarh Sahib dated 23.6.2008, it has been found that
both the petitioners are involved in the occurrence. Counsel for the
complainant has also highlighted that the petitioners have not approached
this Court with clean hands as they have deliberately concealed the
statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and gave a distorted version
of the statement of Satpal (deceased) (Annexure P-2) which has been
CRM M-12431 of 2009 -3-
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that in the original
petition in Annexure P-2, the petitioners deliberately omitted to mention
that “On this, Amrinder Singh alias Midha uttered “Salio tusi plot de kee
lagde ho” and he exhorted his brother and his associates by raising lalkara.”
It is further submitted that the petitioners have changed the eye witness
because in the document Annexure P-2 it has been mentioned that “while
firing Jagtar Singh, resident of Batan Lal Road, Mandi Gobindgarh by
chance also came at the spot who saw the whole incident himself.” It is
submitted by the counsel for the complainant that in fact the actual
averments made by Satpal (deceased) are “at the spot Gagandeep Singh
alias Rikki son of Jagtar Singh, resident of Batan Lal Road, Mandi
Gobindgarh came present and saw the entire occurrence with his own eyes.”
Further, it has been mentioned that in para 5 of the petition, the petitioners
have made misleading averments because he has mentioned that “there was
no evidence against the petitioners to connect them with the murder of
Satpal except the solitary statement of Satpal himself.”
In this regard, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is
not correct that there is no evidence except for the solitary statement of
Satpal (deceased) because there are two eye witnesses, namely, Gagandeep
Singh and Rajinder Singh @ Jindra, whose statements have already been
recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.
Counsel for the State has also argued that the petitioners have
been summoned to face trial under Section 302 IPC. Learned State counsel
has also argued that participation of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence
is writ large in which two persons have been murdered.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions
CRM M-12431 of 2009 -4-
raised by learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the
petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as they had
obtained the interim orders on the basis of statement (Annexure P-2) which
was totally distorted and that order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has not been
challenged so far.
Moreover, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, I do not
find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners,
therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
25.8.2009 JUDGE
Meenu