Crl. Misc. Nos.M-11219 & 11220 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(1) Crl. Misc. No.M-11219 of 2009
Date of decision:08.07.2009.
Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
(2) Crl. Misc. No.M-11220 of 2009
Date of decision:08.07.2009.
Satinder Kumar @ Rubbi ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present: Mr. Tajender K. Joshi, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Aman Deep Singh Rai, A.A.G, Punjab,
for the respondent - State.
*****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL).
Vide this order, I proposed to dispose of Criminal Misc.
No.M-11219 of 2009 titled as `Sukhjit Singh @ Sukhi Vs. State of
Punjab’ and Criminal Misc. No.M-11220 of 2009 titled as `Satinder
Kumar @ Rubbi Vs. State of Punjab’ as they arise out of the same
FIR.
Counsel for the petitioners contends that the allegations
against the petitioners although from the reading of the FIR appear to
be serious, but the FIR was registered initially on the statement of
Ravi Pal on 25.06.2008 wherein it has been stated by him that he
Crl. Misc. Nos.M-11219 & 11220 of 2009 -2-
alongwith Harvinder Singh was abducted by five hair cut young boys
in an unnumbered Indica car and taken near the stadium, whereas in
the supplementary statement, which has been made by Ravi Pal on
13.07.2008, the version has totally changed wherein he has stated
that four clean shaven youth, two of them were riding Hero Honda
motorcycle and other two came on foot, took them away by making
them sitting on their motorcycle. It has further been submitted by the
counsel for the petitioners that an addition has been made in the FIR
by further stating that he was dumped in a canal which does not find
mention in the original FIR. All these things go to show that the
involvement of the petitioners is doubtful. He further submits that the
reason which has been given in the FIR for causing injuries by the
petitioners was that one Shri Karamjit Singh suspected involvement
of the complainant in the murder of his son. Counsel for the
petitioners states that in a statement made in that murder case
before the Trial Court, said Shri Karamjit Singh has specifically stated
that Ravi Pal, the complainant in the present FIR, was not involved in
the case of the murder of his son. He, on this basis, submits that the
basis for which and reasons for which the injuries which were alleged
to have been caused by the petitioners, have thus, been found to be
not correct. The allegations cannot be supposed to be correct.
Counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the
case is now fixed for 14.07.2009. On an question being asked by the
Court, the counsel for the State states that 17 witnesses have been
named which have to be examined by the prosecution, out of which
only one witness has been examined and that too examination in
chief have been done and cross examination has been deferred.
Crl. Misc. Nos.M-11219 & 11220 of 2009 -3-
Counsel for the petitioners submits that apart from the
discrepancies which have been pointed out by him, the petitioner are
in custody since 22.07.2008 and no useful purpose will be served by
keeping them further in custody in view of the fact that Karamjit Singh
has categorically stated in his statement before the Trial Court that
the complainant Ravi Pal was not involved in the murder of his son.
I have heard the counsel for the parties and have gone
through the records of the case.
In view of the submissions made by the counsel for the
petitioners, which the counsel for the State is unable to rebut as is
apparent from the record, and further keeping in view the fact that the
petitioners are in custody since 22.07.2008 and only one witness has
been examined in chief whereas his cross examination has been
deferred, and 17 witnesses in all had to be examined, the trial cannot
be said to have been made much progress and, therefore, is not
likely to be completed soon. In view of the above and further that no
useful purpose would be served by detaining the petitioners in
custody further, the applications of the petitioners are allowed. The
petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of
the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Ludhiana.
Opinion expressed shall have no bearing on the trial on
merits.
July 08, 2009. ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) vinod JUDGE