CRM M-15704 of 2009 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM M-15704 of 2009
Date of Decision: 18.8.2009
Kulwinder Singh @ Kala
....Petitioner.
Vs.
State of Punjab and another
..Respondents.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
Present : Mr.S.P.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG Punjab.
Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the complainant.
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J.
The petitioner has applied for anticipatory bail in complaint
case no.178/4 dated 24.9.2007 titled as Harbans Singh Vs. Harjit Singh and
others under Sections 302/364/34 IPC pending in the Court of JMIC
Khanna.
The petitioner has been summoned vide order dated
23.12.2008. He applied for anticipatory bail before the Court below which
was dismissed on 26.5.2009 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that Pritpal Singh
(deceased) committed suicide on 30.4.2006 and his father Gurbax Singh
reported the matter to the Police Station Sadar, Khanna District Ludhiana
vide DDR No.32 dated 2.5.2006. During the investigation viscera of the
deceased was sent for chemical examination. The doctor opined that he had
CRM M-15704 of 2009 -2 –
consumed “Aluminium Phosphide Insecticide” and Ethyle Alcohol was also
found present. The complainant got examined Dr.N.P.S.Virk as CW3 who
had conducted post mortem of the deceased and according to him, there was
no injury on the person of the deceased. The investigation was conducted by
DSP Balwant Singh and upto the rank of SSP, wherein it was concluded that
it was a case of suicide. Initially Gurbax Singh father of the deceased was
not satisfied with the investigation and had moved higher Police officers.
Again detailed investigation was conducted by SP(D) Khanna, who
submitted his report on 23.1.2007 concluding that it was a case of suicide.
Thereafter, father of the deceased approached this Court by way of
Crl.M.No.59688-M of 2006 for handing over the case to some independent
private agency. This Court marked the enquiry to the Crime Branch.
Thereafter, Gurkirpal Singh, Superintendent of Police, Special Crime
Branch, also investigated the case and submitted a detailed report that it was
a case of suicidal death. It is further submitted that father of the deceased
again approached this Court by way of Crl.M.No.17936-M of 2006 for
handing over the investigation to CBI but the said petition was dismissed.
However, the present complainant Harbans Singh, who is not related to the
deceased, without disclosing the fact that this Court was already seized of
the matter, filed the present complaint in which the petitioner along with
others have been summoned.
At the time of notice of motion, it was argued by the counsel
for the petitioner that the complainant & the petitioner were partners in the
liquor business. The matter was enquired into by Superintendent of Police
(Detective), Khanna who had found that it was a case of suicide. While
issuing notice of motion, the Court had directed the petitioner to appear
CRM M-15704 of 2009 -3 –
before Summoning Court and shall be released on interim bail.
Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that petitioner
had appeared before Summoning Court and has already been released on
interim bail. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that his case
is similar to that of Jatinder Singh (co-accused) who has already been
granted anticipatory bail by this Court in Crl.M.No.5752 of 2009 (O&M) on
30.3.2009.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the complainant has
vehemently argued that the complainant was an eye witness as he had over
heard all the four accused who were talking that they would kill Pritpal
Singh by giving him Sulphas tablets. He had also seen the said Pritpal Singh
lying tied down in their car but earlier he could not come forward due to
fear but as his conscious continuously teased him, therefore, regardless of
the consequences, he had filed the complaint. It is submitted that in this case
a young person has been killed by the petitioner along with co-accused,
therefore, bail should not be granted.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
As per complaint (Annexure P-1), similar allegations have been
levelled against all the four accused which includes Jatinder Singh, Malkit,
who has already been granted anticipatory bail by Hon’ble Mr.Justice
K.C.Puri on 30.3.2009. The order passed by this Court is reproduced as
under :
“Jatinder Singh – petitioner has applied for grant of
anticipatory bail in complaint case No.178/4 dated 24.9.2007 titled as
Harbans Singh Vs. Harjit Singh and others, under Sections
302/364/34 IPC pending in the Court of JMIC, Khanna.
The name of the petitioner cropped up for the first time
CRM M-15704 of 2009 -4 –
on 13.7.2007 i.e. after more than 1 year and 2 months. It is a
complaint case. The complainant is Harbans Singh, who has stated
that he has last seen the deceased in company of the petitioner. He has
disclosed the fact after 1 year and 2 months. The crime branch of the
police department has conducted enquiry and name of the petitioner
does not figure.”
So, in my view, it is a fit case to allow the application.
Consequently, the application stands allowed.
Bail to the satisfaction of the trial Court.”
Since the allegations against all the accused are similar,
therefore, on the point of parity, order passed by this Court dated 4.6.2009
is hereby made absolute.
The petition stands disposed of.
(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN)
18.8.2009 JUDGE
Meenu