Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1184 (PNJ)

Jagraj Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-11-14

SURYA KANT

body2005
Judgment Surya Kant, J. 1. The prayer in this petition is to release the petitioner on regular bail in FIR No. 2 dated 3.1.2005, under Sections 302, 176, 202, 212, 109, 34, 120-B, IPC, registered at Police Station Kotwali, Barnala. 2. The aforesaid FIR has been registered on a complaint made by Vijay Kumar son of Ved Parkash (since deceased) who alleged that on 2.1.2005, his father after taking meals, went out and slept in a small room with a verndah constructed by them as a cattle shed in a plot which is at some distance from their residential house. In the morning of 3.1.2005, when the complainant went to the courtyard, he found the blood-smeared dead body of his father lying on the ground near the kikar tree. There were two broken cheel wood frames, some money and a cheque as well as a parna apart from slippers and pyjama lying near the dead body. The complainant suspected that since his father had a dispute over raising of a wall with one Karnail Singh s/o Chand Singh though the same had been compromised upon, it was just possible that Karnail Singh had got his father killed through someone. 3. From the contents of the FIR, it is apparent that it is a case of clueless murder which took place on the intervening night of 2-3 January, 2005. 4. It is alleged that on 4.2.2005 one Jagir Singh made an extra-judicial confession before the Municipal Councillor Pritam Singh to the effect that he, Daljit Singh, Jagraj Singh (petitioner) as well as the deceased Ved Parkash used to take liquor together and on 2.1.2005 also when they were having liquor, the deceased Ved Parkash allegedly made an offending remark before leaving the place. Thereafter, Jagsir Singh and his associates referred to above allegedly planned to finish off Ved Parkash. The petitioner, however, left the scene and thereafter only that the said Jagsir Singh along with Balwinder Singh and Daljit Singh allegedly went to the room where Ved Parkash was sleeping. While Jagsir Singh kept on waiting on scooter No. PB-10-AM-5980, Ved Parkash was done to death by Balwinder Singh and Daljit Singh and then all of them fled away on the scooter. 5. While Jagsir Singh kept on waiting on scooter No. PB-10-AM-5980, Ved Parkash was done to death by Balwinder Singh and Daljit Singh and then all of them fled away on the scooter. 5. The above mentioned scooter is alleged to have been recovered from the petitioner on 14.2.2005 when he was driving the same and Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder was its pillion rider. The petitioner was also arrested on that very day. 6. In support of the prayer made in this petition. learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that :- (i) the petitioner is in custody since 14.2.2005; (ii) the investigation is complete, challan has been presented and the case is now fixed for prosecution evidence, (iii) the prosecution intends to examine as many as 22 witnesses, therefore conclusion of trial will take a considerably long period; (iv) the petitioner is sought to be implicated on the basis of an alleged extra-judicial confession made by co-accused Jagsir Singh before the Municipal Councillor Pritam Singh which is inadmissible in evidence; (v) as per the alleged extra-judicial confessional statement, the petitioner was not amongst those who went to the house and/or caused injuries to the deceased; (vi) the petitioner is sought to be implicated with the aid of Section 120-B IPC; (vii) the petitioner undertakes not to tamper with and/or influence the prosecution witnesses. 7 Learned State counsel while opposing the prayer in this petition, contends that having regard to the gravity of offence, no case for bail is made out. She, however, does not dispute the fact that the petitioner has been implicated on the basis of extra-judicial confessional statement made by Jagsir Singh and recovery of the scooter allegedly used for the commission of offence. 8. After having heard learned Counsel for the parties and without expressing any views on the merits of the case lest it should prejudice either of them, but having regard to the nature of allegations made against the petitioner and the fact that the conclusion of trial will take a considerably long period, this petition is allowed and the petitioner is directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala.