Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1351 (PNJ)

Balkar Singh v. State of Haryana

2012-10-01

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - Balkar Singh, the petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.451 dated 29.07.2011 at Police Station Assandh, District Karnal, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324 and 302 read with section 149 IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the occurrence can be seen as consisting of two separate incidents. According to her, as per the FIR, the complainant Lakhwinder Singh and his uncle Bhupinder Singh had been there at the shop of Rambhaj at Bus Stand Sharafali where Bhupinder Singh was attacked by Gurmail Singh, Hoshiar Singh and Kabul Singh. Kabul Singh raised lalkara while Gurmail Singh and Hoshiar Singh assaulted Bhupinder Singh with their spears(Balam). When Baljinder Singh, a brother of Lakhwinder Singh came to the spot, he and the complainant tried to rescue Bhupinder Singh. At this time, another Kabul Singh, son of Amrik Singh and Balkar Singh came to the spot riding a motorcycle and they have caused injuries to Baljinder Singh. Balkar Singh, the petitioner is said to have caused injury to Baljinder Singh with a spear on his chest. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the injury attributed to the petitioner is simple. She has further submitted that the petitioner has no concern with the injuries caused by Kabul Singh, Hoshiar Singh and Gurmail Singh to Bhupinder Singh, on account of which, Bhupinder Singh had died. She has further submitted that Kabul Singh son of Amrik Singh, whose role in the occurrence is similar to the role of the petitioner, has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 13.07.2012 in Crl. Misc. No.M-14981 of 2012. She has, thus, submitted that the petitioner, who is in custody since 31.07.2012, is entitled to bail. 4. Learned State counsel has admitted on the other hand that no injury to the deceased has been attributed to the petitioner. According to him, the trial is at advanced stage. He did not dispute the fact that the case against the petitioner and Kabul Singh son of Amrik Singh is at par. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the attack by the petitioner was very dangerous in which one died and one was left with serious injuries. According to him, the petitioner, who has used spear in the occurrence, is not entitled to bail. 6. 5. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the attack by the petitioner was very dangerous in which one died and one was left with serious injuries. According to him, the petitioner, who has used spear in the occurrence, is not entitled to bail. 6. The very narration of the occurrence in the FIR suggests that the petitioner and Kabul Singh reached the spot after another Kabul Singh son of Balkar Singh and his two brothers had caused injuries to Bhupinder Singh. It would be the moot point at the trial as to whether the petitioner and Kabul Singh son of Amrik Singh were sharing common intention with Hoshiar Singh and others. It is worth mentioning here that Kabul Singh son of Amrik Singh, who is placed similarly to the petitioner in the case has been granted bail by this court vide order dated 13.07.2012. So, on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to bail. Hence, the petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond in a sum of Rs.30,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of learned trial court. ---------0.B.S.0------------