Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 931 (PNJ)

Balwinder Singh v. State Of Punjab

2001-08-28

NIRMAL SINGH

body2001
Judgment Nirmal Singh, J. 1. This is a petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of bail in a complaint case titled "Karnail Singh @ Karnail Dass v. Balwinder Singh (Criminal case No. 189-1 dated 22.8.2000 pending in the Court of Learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Fazilka for the offence under Sections 302/326/323/506/148/149 IPC. 2. Initially, FIR No. 108 dated 15.7.2000 under Sections 302, 148, 149 IPC was registered against the petitioners on the statement of Karnail Singh complainant. The investigation was conducted. After completion of the investigation, petitioners were found innocent. It was found that Labh Dass is the assailant in this case and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. against Labh Dass was presented in the Court of illaqa Magistrate to face trial under Section 302 IPC. 3. Complainant Karnail Singh @ Karnail Dass filed a complaint against the petitioners under Section 302/148 IPC. After recording the evidence of the complainant, illaqa Magistrate summoned the petitioner through warrants of arrest vide order dated 4.1.2001. The petitioner applied for bail in the Court of Sessions Judge, Ferozepur. The bail came up for hearing before Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozepur who vide impugned order dated 5.3.2001 dismissed the bail application. The petitioner approached this Court for bail. K.S. Kumaran J. allowed interim bail to the petitioners vide order dated 23.3.2001. 4. Mr. R.S. Ghai, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that on the report lodged by Karnail Dass @ Karnail Singh, petitioner have been found innocent during investigation. He submitted that after investigation, it was found that Labh Dass is the assailant in the case and the petitioners have no concern with the case. He further submitted that once it has come in the investigation report that petitioners are innocent, the evidence led in the complaint is not to be looked into for the purpose of bail. He further submitted that the intention of the complainant is that the petitioners should remain in jail for one way or the other. He submitted that Karnail Dass lodged a false report with the police that the petitioners are threatening the witnesses. He submitted that on the report lodged by Karnail Dass, investigation was again conducted and found to be false. He further pointed out that the police has prepared a calendra under Sections 193, 194 and 182 IPC for initiating proceedings against the complainant. 5. On the other hand, Mr. He submitted that on the report lodged by Karnail Dass, investigation was again conducted and found to be false. He further pointed out that the police has prepared a calendra under Sections 193, 194 and 182 IPC for initiating proceedings against the complainant. 5. On the other hand, Mr. D.S. Bali, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Antar Singh Brar, appearing for the complainant submitted that the petitioners are influential person and the police is acting on their behest. He submitted that firstly the F.I.R. lodged by the complainant with regard to the murder of James has been found to be false. He pointed out that the petitioners have been summoned by the Illaqa Magistrate to face trial under Section 302 IPC. When the petitioners came to know that they have been summoned in the complaint, then they threatened the witnesses and for that a complaint was lodged. He submitted that without investigating the complaint of Karnail Dass and instead of taking action against the petitioners, the police at their instance has filed a report under Sections 193, 194 and 182 IPC for initiating proceedings against the complainant. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. The complaint was filed in the Court of Illaqa Magistrate as back as on 22.8.2000. No physical harm has been caused to the complainant or to the eyewitnesses. The point which goes in favour of the petitioners at this stage is that the petitioners have been found innocent during investigation. The interim bail was granted by K.S. Kumaran J. on 23.3.2001. The petitioners have not misused the concession of bail. The complaint lodged by the complainant has been found to be false one that petitioners have threatened the witnesses. Rather for making a false report by the complainant, proceedings under Sections 193/194 and 182 IPC have been initiated against him. The prosecution has challaned Labh Dass. Furthermore, the merits of the case cannot be examined in bail application as it has been laid down in Mahinder Kaur v. Tej Singh, 2000(4) All India Criminal Reports 768. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners and they have already appeared before the illaqa Magistrate and have furnished bail bonds. They are not required for any other purpose, so, no useful purpose will be served by taking the petitioners in custody during trial. 7. No recovery is to be effected from the petitioners and they have already appeared before the illaqa Magistrate and have furnished bail bonds. They are not required for any other purpose, so, no useful purpose will be served by taking the petitioners in custody during trial. 7. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of this case, interim order dated 23.3.2001 is made absolute on the condition that the petitioners will not temper with the evidence and will not leave India without prior permission.