Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 894 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh Alias Jindi v. State Of Punjab

2002-09-09

R.C.KATHURIA

body2002
Judgment R.C.Kathuria, J. 1. This order shall dispose of Criminal Miscellaneous No. 18311-M of 2002 filed by the petitioner before the Inspecting Judge of this Court in jail at Jalandhar on 12.4.2002 and Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2118-M of 2002 filed by Joginder Singh @ Jindi, petitioner in Court through his counsel. 2. For adjudication of the present petition, a few facts need to be noticed. The case came to be registered on the statement of Harnek Singh that on 7.8.2001 at 7.00 P.M., his nephew Daljit Singh was coming from Lambra to village Mirpur. On the way, Daljit Singh was stopped by Satnam Singh and his servant Raju. Daljit Singh narrated the above incident to Harnek Singh. Harnek Singh and his wife Surinder Kaur persuaded him to return to his house. Soon after he had left, they heard the noise of lalkara coming from the side of the house of Darshan Singh, uncle of Harnek Singh, whereupon, Harnek Singh and his wife came out of the house and reached in front of the house of Darshan Singh. They saw accused Satnam Singh, armed with Kirpan, Amarjeet Singh armed with revolver, Harminder Singh @ Ford armed with Gandasi, Bhupinder Singh armed with Datar, Baldev Singh @ Dev armed with Kirpan, Joginder Singh @ Jindi (present petitioner) armed with Kirpan, Kala and Lakha Singh armed with Gandasies. Bhupinder Singh gave a lalkara saying that they had to be taught a lesson for taking the land of his brother on lease and for getting the sarpanchi. Thereupon, accused Amarjeet Singh fired two shots from his revolver at Santokh Singh which hit him on his chest. Complainant tried to rescue him but Satnam Singh hit him on his head with kirpan as a result, he fell down on the ground. While he was lying on the ground, Lakha and Kala gave blows from the reverse side of the gandasies on his back. Above named accused also caused injuries to Amrik Singh, brother of the complainant and his wife Mohinder Kaur. On the alarm raised by him, Surinder Kaur and Mohinder Singh came there and rescued them from the hands of the accused. Thereafter, accused proceeded towards the fields carrying their weapons with them. Santokh Singh succumbed to the injuries. 3. Above named accused also caused injuries to Amrik Singh, brother of the complainant and his wife Mohinder Kaur. On the alarm raised by him, Surinder Kaur and Mohinder Singh came there and rescued them from the hands of the accused. Thereafter, accused proceeded towards the fields carrying their weapons with them. Santokh Singh succumbed to the injuries. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner-accused while pressing for bail, mainly contended before me that only presence of the petitioner-accused armed with kirpan is stated in the report lodged by the complainant and no overt act has been attributed to him. It was contended that factually, he had gone there only to separate the parties and his involvement in the commission of the alleged crime was not substantiated during the investigation of the case and subsequently, under the direction of Superintendent of Police, Jalandhar, challan was put in Court but this by itself is not a sufficient ground to deny the concession of bail to the petitioner-accused. It had also been stated by him that the petitioner-accused has been in custody since August 2001. 4. Opposing the submissions made, it was strenuously contended by the State counsel that presence of the petitioner-accused at the spot of occurrence even without causing any injury to any of the injured witnesses or the deceased would show his culpability with the crime on account of vicarious liability under Section 149 of the Code in relation to the offences committed by his co-accused. It was also pointed out by him that after the challan had been put in Court, charge was framed against the petitioner-accused and the case stands posted for trial. 5. The merits of the respective stands taken by the parties have to be decided during the trial of the case. For the purpose of present petition, one cannot ignore the fact that during their police statement, none of the witnesses had indicated that petitioner-accused had caused any injury to the deceased or any of the injured witnesses. 6. Taking into account the period of the petitioner-accused in custody and the totality of circumstances brought on record, I accept his petition and order that he shall be admitted to bail on his furnishing bail/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Judge. Both the petitions stand disposed of accordingly.