Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1540 (PNJ)

Sukhchain Singh v. State Of Punjab

2007-08-24

T.P.S.MANN

body2007
Judgment T.P.S.Mann, J. 1. The petitioner has prayed for his release on bail during the pendency of a criminal case arising out of FIR No. 20 dated 25.8.2006 registered at Police Station City, Sunam, District Sangrur under Sections 302/307/341/3261324/323/ 148/149/120-B IPC. 2. The occurrence in question had taken place on 24.8.2006 at 4.30 P.M., wherein Jaspal Singh @ Jassi and Jasvir Singh received injuries. Both of the victims were removed to the Civil Hospital, Sunam, but as their condition was serious, they were further referred to DMC, Ludhiana, where Jaspal Singh @ Jassi was declared dead. FIR was registered on the basis of a statement made by Manjit Singh, brother of Jaspal Singh @ Jassi deceased. It was alleged that the petitioner was armed with a kirpan and had given a blow with the same hitting Jaspal Singh @ Jassi, since deceased, on his left shoulder. Injuries were also caused by other accused to both the victims. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner had submitted that after a thorough investigation of the case, the investigating agency found the petitioner to be innocent. Accordingly, his name was proposed to be placed in column No. 2 of the challan. However, by that time, the petitioner had already been arrested. Once the petitioner was found innocent, no request was made by the investigating agency for the extension of the judicial remand of the petitioner. However, after the presentation of the final report under section 173 Cr.P.C. against other accused, the said accused were committed to the Court of Session for their trial. Even the learned Illaqa Magistrate had no power to add the petitioner to the case as, an accused, as the investigating agency never intended to challan the petitioner. Now, after the commitment of the case, the trial of the case has not yet started and therefore, no useful purpose would be served by keeping the petitioner behind the bars. Accordingly, prayer has been made for the concession of bail to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the State and the complainant opposed the prayer of the petitioner for the grant of bail by submitting that the petitioner was specifically named as one of the accused, who had given an injury to Jaspal Singh @ Jassi deceased. Moreover, learned Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 6.1.2007 committed the case for trial to the Court of Session. Moreover, learned Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 6.1.2007 committed the case for trial to the Court of Session. The law recognises commitment of the case and not of the accused, therefore, the petitioner had been rightly arrayed as one of the accused and has now to face the trial before the Court of Session. 5. The petitioner had earlier moved this Court for the grant of bail by filing Criminal Miscellaneous No. 13620-M of 2006, but the same was dismissed as having been withdrawn by learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the same for sometime. 6. It is not disputed that the petitioner is one of the accused in the FIR. He was alleged to have caused an injury with a kirpan on the left shoulder of Jaspal Singh @ Jassi deceased. It is also not disputed that during the investigation of the case, the investigating agency found that the petitioner was not present at the time of the alleged occurrence. However, by that time, the petitioner had already been arrested in the case. After the investigating agency arrived at the aforementioned conclusion, it did not make any request before the learned Illaqa Magistrate for extension of judicial remand of the petitioner. 7. Coming to the question as to whether the petitioner could be committed to the Court of Session without there being any challan against him, it may be noticed that in Hareram Satpathy v. Tikaram Aggarwal and others, AIR 1978 SC 1568, it was held that the Illaqa Magistrate takes cognizance of the offence on the police report and after taking cognizance and perusal of the record, if he satisfied himself that there were prima facie grounds, he would issue process against the accused. In so doing, the Magistrate would not exceed the powers vested in him under the law even when no challan was presented by the police against the accused. The complainant could file a separate complaint was also no ground to conclude that the Magistrate could not issue the process on the basis of the material placed before him along with police report. The complainant could file a separate complaint was also no ground to conclude that the Magistrate could not issue the process on the basis of the material placed before him along with police report. After relying upon Hareram Satpathys case (supra), a Division Bench of this Court in Surat Singh v. State of Punjab, 1981 Chandigarh Law Reporter 547 held that the Magistrate had the fullest jurisdiction to differ with the conclusion of the police in the report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and direct the accused person mentioned in column No. 2 thereof to be summoned and committed to the Court of Session for trial. 8. In the present case the petitioner was not found involved during the investigation of the case. However, as the challan was presented by the police against the co-accused of the petitioner, who were sought to be tried, the learned Magistrate was justified in committing the entire case, including the one against the petitioner, to the Court of Session for its trial. 9. Prima facie, it has been shown that the petitioner is one of the accused who had caused an injury on the left shoulder of Jaspal Singh @ Jassi deceased. His plea that he was not present at the time of the occurrence will have to be established by him by leading cogent evidence. 10. The prayer of the petitioner for the grant of bail was not acceded to by this Court on 24.4.2007, when the same was withdrawn by learned counsel for the petitioner after arguing the same for sometime. 11. In view of the above, no case is made out for the grant of bail to the petitioner. The application is, accordingly, dismissed. Nothing stated above shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the case. The observations were meant only for deciding the present application.