Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 1445 (PNJ)

Ranjit Bajaj v. State Of Haryana

2010-04-09

S.S.SARON

body2010
Judgment S.S.Saron, J. 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset has submitted that the application seeking transfer of the criminal complaint and transfer of the investigation in the present FIR filed in the Supreme Court has been withdrawn. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 30.1.2010 at Police Station Chandimandir, District Panchkula for the offences under Sections 323, 307, 506, 295-A read with Section 34 Indian Penal Code (IPC for short). 4. The FIR (Annexure-P.2) in the case has been registered on the complaint of Gurmohan Singh Bedi. It is alleged by the complainant that he along with his friend Amarbir Singh Salar had gone to Hotel North Park at 9.30 p.m. to attend the party organized by SJOBA (St. John Old Boys Association) for Winter Ball. At about 1.30 p.m. (sic. - a.m.) after the party was over, he was standing outside the gate. At that time a car of the petitioner with three young boys drove over his foot. The complainant is stated to have said that brother be careful while driving. After that one gunman, whose name the complainant later came to know was Mahender Singh, came to him and hit his lip with the but of his pistol. As a result of which the complainant suffered an injury on the left lower lip. After this the petitioner and the second gunman, whose name the complainant did not know but could recognize him, came to him. The petitioner took the pistol of Mahender Singh and the second gunman also took out his pistol. They put their respective pistols on the head of the complainant with an intention to kill him. They removed the turban of Amarbir Singh and caught his beard. After this, a lot of persons gathered and the complainant ran inside the hotel to save his life. They threatened while going that he had escaped but if they met him again then they would kill him. It was requested that action be taken. The MLR (Annexure-P.5) of the complainant was got conducted in which injury No. 1 was found to be a lacerated wound over lower lip. Injury No. 2 was swelling over nose and injury No.3 mentions pain at middle finger with restriction of movement. Injuries No. 2 and 3 were to be reviewed after X-ray. 5. The MLR (Annexure-P.5) of the complainant was got conducted in which injury No. 1 was found to be a lacerated wound over lower lip. Injury No. 2 was swelling over nose and injury No.3 mentions pain at middle finger with restriction of movement. Injuries No. 2 and 3 were to be reviewed after X-ray. 5. Learned counsel for the State has accepted that the injuries on the person of the complainant have been found to be simple in nature. After the FIR a supplementary statement of the complainant was recorded on 30.12010. It is stated by the complainant that the previous night after the party was over at North Park at about 1.30 a.m. when he along with his friend Amarbir Singh and Puneet Chadha were coming out of the venue and going home then the petitioner and his gunmen had beaten him. Besides, the petitioner had put the pistol on his ear lobe and pressed the trigger but it misfired. He in order to save his life ran inside the hotel. When he made his earlier statement he was under fear and he forgot to narrate this aspect. It is on account of the supplementary statement that the offence under Section 307 IPC has been added. The statements of Amarbir Singh and Puneet Chadha under Section 161 Cr.P.C. to this effect have also been separately recorded. 6. It may be noticed that the skirmish in the case is stated to have occurred on account of the car of the petitioner being run over the foot of the complainant. This according to the complainant had resulted in the petitioner overawing him and the gunman of the petitioner hitting him on the lip besides beating him. 7. The petitioner, however has a different version which is to the effect that the complainant had misbehaved with his lady guests that were accompanying him. Leaned counsel for the petitioner at this stage has submitted that the said complaint has also been withdrawn by the said complainants. 8. The petitioner is in custody since 3.3.2010. He is admittedly not required for the purposes of investigation. The question whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not would require consideration by the investigating authorities or the Court as the case may be. The complainant has suffered only minor injuries. There is no prior enmity between the parties. He is admittedly not required for the purposes of investigation. The question whether the offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not would require consideration by the investigating authorities or the Court as the case may be. The complainant has suffered only minor injuries. There is no prior enmity between the parties. The skirmish in the case is on account of a trivial incident that occurred during old school boys get together. The. incident is one which happened at the spur of the moment without premeditation. In the circumstances, it is to be determined whether a pistol was put on the ear lobe of the complainant as is mentioned in his supplementary statement and if so, whether there was an intention on the part of the petitioner to commit murder so as to make out an offence of attempt to murder under Section 307 IPC. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. 9. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Panchkula shall be admitted to bail.