Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1099 (PNJ)

Hoshiar Singh v. State Of Punjab

2004-09-27

M.M.KUMAR

body2004
Judgment M.M.Kumar, J. 1. This petition filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for brevity, `Cr.P.C.) prays for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner who happens to be father-in-law of the complainant in case FIR No. 132 dated 2.8.2004 registered under Sections 307, 427, 506, 34 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54, 59 of the Arms Act, 1959. The allegations disclosed in the first information report show that wife of the complainant Sukhjinder Kaur had filed complaints in the Women Cell, Ludhiana which were found to be false. On 2.8.2004 when he went to answer the door bell and opened the door without opening the second door with mesh, he found one Bhupinder Singh son of the petitioner armed with .12 bore gun. He fired at the complainant with the intention to kill him. However, he was able to avoid the shot which hit on the window. The further allegation is that another shot was fired but the same hit the window pane near the earlier shot. On hearing the noise of fire arms, neighbors whose names were Mangal Singh, Gian Singh and others came there. The father-in-law of the petitioner who was standing outside, raised lalkara that complainant be killed and taught a lesson for deserting his daughter. On hearing the hue and cry, both of them fled away along with their respective weapons. 2. Mr. Narender Hooda, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the conduct of the complainant is not good as he has been playing hide and seek with the daughter of the petitioner. In order to substantiate his submission the learned counsel has made a reference to a case filed by him under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 195 (for brevity `the Act) which was pending at Ludhiana. When the transfer petition filed by Sukhjinder Kaur was allowed by this Court, the petition under Section 9 of the Act (which) had been pending at Ludhiana was withdrawn. 3. After hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any ground to exercise the discretion vested by Section 438 Cr.P.C. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and if the petitioner along with his co- accused are convicted, then sentence under Section 307 IPC could be imposed. 3. After hearing the learned counsel, I do not find any ground to exercise the discretion vested by Section 438 Cr.P.C. The allegations levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature and if the petitioner along with his co- accused are convicted, then sentence under Section 307 IPC could be imposed. It is well settled that discretion to grant pre-arrest bail could be exercised only if the offence alleged to be committed is not grave and there is no need of custodial interrogation. In this regard reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bharat Chaudhary and another v. State of Bihar and another, 2003(4) RCR(Crl.) 716 (SC) : 2003(8) SCC 77 and Gurbaksh Singh Sibbia v. State of Punjab, 1980(2) SCC 565. In Bharat Chaudharys case (supra) their Lordships observed as under:- "The object of Section 438 is to prevent undue harassment of the accused persons by pre-trial arrest and detention. The gravity of the offence is an important factor to be taken into consideration while granting such anticipatory bail so also the need for custodial interrogation, but these are only factors that must be borne in mind by the Courts concerned while entertaining a petition for grant of anticipatory bail......" 4. Keeping in view the nature of charges, motive and obvious need of custodial interrogation, I do not find that any case is made out for exercising jurisdiction under Section 438 Cr.P.C. 5. The argument of the learned counsel that the petition filed under Section 9 of the Act pending at Ludhiana was withdrawn cannot have any bearing on the issue involved and the argument has failed to impress me. In view of the above, this petition fails and the same is dismissed.