Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 413 (PNJ)

Balbir Singh v. State Of Punjab

2005-03-22

VIRENDER SINGH

body2005
Judgment Virender Singh, J. 1. Petitioner is booked in a case of FIR No. 105 dated 27.10.2004 under Sections 302/34 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act, registered at Police Station City Gurdaspur. He is praying for regular bail. The facts in brief : 2. Gulshan is the deceased in this case. He is real brother of Lovraj Singh, the complainant/FIR lodger. He alleges that Hardeshwar Singh alias Hunny son of the petitioner had levelled allegation against Gulshan (since deceased) that he had cut a joke with the sister of his friend. Gulshan, however, had described himself as innocent about this. It is then alleged that on 26.10.2004 at about 2.30 P.M., when Lovraj Singh along with Gulshan, Bakshish Raj and jagdish Raj after getting free from the marriage of their sister (Lovrajs sister) were standing near Butanwali and were talking to each other, Hardeshwar Singh came there and gave abuses to Gulshan and said that he has to be dealt with. In vernacular, the words are "Tainu Zaroor Vekhna Hai". It is then alleged that the complainant and other persons prevented both of them from quarreling. Hardeshwar Singh then went towards Bus Stand and after 15/20 minutes came in a Santro Car No. PB-06D-5989. It was driven by Hardeshwar and the present petitioner was sitting on the front seat towards his left. He was having .12 bore double barrel gun. It is then alleged that after stopping the car, both of them came out. The petitioner is alleged to have raised lalkara saying that he (Gulshan) could run to any direction but would not be spared. In vernacular it is said "Gulshan Jidhar Daurna Hai Daur Lai Tainu Nahin Chhodna". It is then alleged that the petitioner then handed over his .12 bore gun to his son Hardeshwar Singh and said that Gulshan should not go scot free. Thereafter Hardeshwar Singh fired from the said gun at him hitting him on his chest. An alarm was raised whereupon Hardeshwar Singh fired another shot in the air and this frightened the complainant side. Thereafter Hardeshwar Singh and the present petitioner drove away their car towards Bus Stand. Gulshan died at the spot. 3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K. Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab assisted by Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. Thereafter Hardeshwar Singh and the present petitioner drove away their car towards Bus Stand. Gulshan died at the spot. 3. I have heard Mr. R.S. Cheema, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. R.K. Trikha, Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Randhawa, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab assisted by Mr. Pankaj Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the complainant. 4. The learned counsel for the complainant during the course of arguments has also placed on record the true copy of the photostat copy of the Daily Diary Report dated 11.1.2005, which was got recorded by the complainant Lovraj Singh with the concerned police of City Gurdaspur. The same is taken on record as Mr. Cheema has raised no objection to its being taken on record. 5. Mr. Cheema contends that the allegations as contained in the First Information Report clearly indicate that there was a dispute with Gulshan deceased for the last one and a half months and on 26.10.2004 at about 2.30 P.M., the son of the petitioner had a quarrel with Gulshan once again and both were separated. According to Mr. Cheema, possibly the present petitioner for that reason would not accompany his son to assault Gulshan and the allegations against him do not appeal to natural prudence. He then contends that the fatal injury is otherwise attributed to son of the petitioner who had fired a shot from the gun, may be that the said gun belonged to the petitioner. The petitioner had allegedly raised a lalkara and then handed over his gun to his son. According to the learned counsel, the present petitioner has been booked in this case simply on the ground that his licensed gun has been used in the occurrence and the complainant side taking an undue advantage of the situation has falsely implicated the petitioner by showing her active participation in the manner now alleged. 6. Mr. Cheema further contends that the petitioner is a practising Advocate at Gurdaspur; he also remained the President of the District Bar Association; he being an Advocate knows all the consequences and in fact his involvement in this case is on account of certain extraneous reasons. 6. Mr. Cheema further contends that the petitioner is a practising Advocate at Gurdaspur; he also remained the President of the District Bar Association; he being an Advocate knows all the consequences and in fact his involvement in this case is on account of certain extraneous reasons. He then contends that even the DDR No. 31 now got recorded at the instance of complainant on 11.1.2005 alleging that the present petitioner is holding out threat to the complainant is again a clever move by the complainant side to create a hurdle for the petitioner for seeking the relief of regular bail. Drawing my attention to the impugned order, the learned counsel contends that the learned trial Court has also taken the aforesaid DDR into account while dismissing the application of the petitioner whereas the said allegations were never verified by any agency. 7. The bail application of the petitioner has been opposed by the learned State counsel and Mr. Bhardwaj vehemently stating that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of bail on account of the gravity of offence as he has played an active role by raising a lalkara and then handed over his gun to his son who ultimately fired a shot at Gulshan. It is then submitted that may be that the present petitioner had no motive in this case, viz to commit the murder of Gulshan, but at the same time he accompanied his son to the spot with the gun and these factors disentitle him from the relief now sought. It is further contended that the petitioner is threatening the witnesses and the complainant and in case he is granted the concession of bail, there is every likelihood that he would tamper with the evidence at the relevant stage. His bail application, thus, deserves to be dismissed. 8. Showing my all restraints in expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it may prejudice the case of either side at the relevant stage of trial, but keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances of the instant case especially the role attributed to the petitioner, I deem it appropriate to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner. Consequently, the instant application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. Consequently, the instant application is allowed. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing two sureties bonds to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gurdaspur. As DDR No. 31 at the instance of Lovraj Singh complainant is lodged in Police Station City Gurdaspur and in order to allay all the fears from the mind of the complainant, I hereby direct that Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur would personally look into the matter and then get it verified from a senior police official not below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. In case some substance is found in the complaint, he in that eventuality would take the appropriate action according to law. He would also ensure all the protection and safety to the material witnesses of the prosecution. Copy of the order be sent to Senior Superintendent of Police, Gurdaspur for compliance.