Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 828 (PNJ)

Karamjit Singh v. State of Punjab

2000-07-31

K.S.KUMARAN

body2000
JUDGMENT K.S. Kumaran, J. - FIR No. 136 dated 31.8.1999 has been registered at Police Station Dirba under Sections 325, 323, 307, 148 and 194 Indian Penal Code on the complaint given by Baljit Singh, wherein the following material allegations are found : 2. Joginder Singh, Gurcharan Singh and Gurtej Singh are brothers, Complainant-Baljit Singh, Harmel Singh, Gurdip Singh, Hardip Singh and Harkewal Singh are sons of Joginder Singh. Complainants paternal uncle- Gurtej Singh was having 2 kanals of excess land than his share which the complainant-party was requesting him to leave, but he had not done so. Some altercation took place with regard to the same and both the parties were released on bail in June 1999. They have also shared the turn of canal water. On 30.8.1999, at 11 p.m., the complainant-party had to get water after Gurtej Singh. At about 10 p.m., the complainant, his brother-Harmel Singh alias Kaka, Gurcharan Singh and their cousin-Nirbhey Singh were going towards their fields when they reached near the land of Gurwant Singh alias Bhola, their uncles-Gurtej Singh and Gurcharan Singh were found sitting with a Barchhi each, while petitioners-Karamjit Singh and Dharamjit Singh (both sons of Gurtej Singh) were each armed with a gandasa. Darbara Singh was having a soti and one more unknown person was having a barchhi. 3. Gurtej Singh raised a lalkara that Harmel Singh be taught a lesson for demanding the land, on which 2nd petitioner-Dharamjit Singh gave a blow with the gandasa on the left side of the head of Harmel Singh, while Ist petitioner-Karamjit Singh gave a blow with a gandasa on his head. Gurtej Singh gave a barchhi blow on the head of Harmel Singh, which struck on the right and left sides on the back of his head. Karamjit Singh gave a blow with the reverse side of gandasa on the left hand of Harmel Singh which hit on his central finger. Harmel Singh fell down. 2nd petitioner-Dharamjit Singh gave a blow with the reverse side of the gandasa above the right ankle of Harmel Singh by which his leg was fractured. 4. Gurcharan Singh gave three blows with the Barchhi which struck on the complainants right ribs, near the left elbow on the arm and below the right knee. 5. Darbara Singh gave a blow with the soti on the left hand of Gurdip Singh. 4. Gurcharan Singh gave three blows with the Barchhi which struck on the complainants right ribs, near the left elbow on the arm and below the right knee. 5. Darbara Singh gave a blow with the soti on the left hand of Gurdip Singh. Darbara Singh gave 3 blows with gandasi on the left upper arm, above the left ankle, and on the left side of the groin of Nirbhey Singh. 6. The unknown person gave 3 blow with the barchhi above the left eye, on the left shoulder and on the central finger of the left hand of Nirbhey Singh. Ist petitioner-Karamjit Singh gave blow with reverse side of the gandasa on the complainants head above the left ear and the complainant also fell down. All these persons gave injuries to the complainant and Gurmail Singh and Harmel Singh. The complainant suffered injuries on the left side of the groin, left shoulder, right arm, left arm, left side of the back, and above the left ankle. Harmel Singh suffered injury on the back side of the left hand. 7. The petitioners application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. Therefore, the petitioners have approached this court under Section 439 Criminal Procedure Code for the same relief. 8. I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file. 9. The learned Counsel for the petitioners contends that the alleged occurrence took place on 30.8.1999 at 11 p.m. whereas the F.I.R. has been lodged only at 7.15 p.m. on 31.8.1999. He also contends that the alleged acts of accused will not fall under Section 307 Indian Penal Code, inasmuch the doctor has only opined that the possibility of injuries collectively resulting in death cannot be ruled out. He also points out that the injured have been discharged, and Gurtej Singh, Gurcharan Singh, Darbara Singh and Bhola Singh have all been granted bail by this court. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that petitioners are in jail for the last one year and, therefore, are entitled to be released on bail. He also relied upon the decision of this court in Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR 742 in support of his contention. The learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that petitioners are in jail for the last one year and, therefore, are entitled to be released on bail. He also relied upon the decision of this court in Gurmit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR 742 in support of his contention. That was a case where the accused had caused injury with a kirpan on the chest of the injured, while the co-accused were alleged to have attacked him with a dattar or lathi. The learned Counsel appearing for the accused in that case had even questioned the fact that the injury was dangerous to life and also pointed out that the accused therein was a young boy, who was in jail for about five months. It was also pointed out that the injured has been discharged from the hospital, and that the charge-sheet has been filed. In those circumstances, the accused-petitioner in that case was granted bail. 10. But, I am of the view that the petitioners in this case cannot be granted bail. Baljit Singh has suffered 9 injuries in total. Harmel Singh has suffered 13 injuries in total. Of them, six injuries are on the head. He has also suffered injury on the left leg. He has suffered a fracture above the right ankle also. On the left hand also, there was fracture in the middle finger. Therefore, this is not a case of a single injury. The petitioners were armed with a gandasa each and both of them had caused injuries on the head of Harmel Singh. The 2nd petitioner had even allegedly caused fracture on the right ankle. They have caused other injuries also to Harmel Singh. 11. In these circumstances, I am of the view that in view of the serious allegations, the petitioners are not entitled to be released on bail. The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the petitioners will not, on the circumstances of the case, help the petitioners. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed. Petition dismissed.