Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 195 (PNJ)

Raghbir v. State of Haryana

2012-02-02

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Vijender Singh Malik, J.: - This is a petition brought by Raghbir and others seeking regular bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 150 dated 20.6.2011 at Police Station Kanina, District Mohindergarh for an offence punishable under sections 395, 447, 323, 427 of Indian Penal Code, section 25 of Arms Act and section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that petitioners No. 6 and 7, named Ved Parkash and Sunil have been got discharged by the police by making application before the learned Magistrate and she does not press the petition qua them. Consequently, the petition qua petitioners No. 6 and 7 is dismissed as not pressed. 3. Putting it briefly, the case against the petitioners is that Hari Ram, complainant had purchased some portion of the joint land from some of the co-sharers of the petitioners. The complainant has claimed that he was given actual possession of the land sold to him and that he had installed barbed wires around the land purchased by him and had installed a tubewell and a small room. According to him, on 20.6.2011 at about 9.30 AM, the petitioners alongwith others came to his land in five tractors and have entered his fields while firing shots from the guns. They gave fist and kick blows to the complainant and his siri (crop sharer) and had abused him in very derogatory language. While at the spot they demolished the barbed wires, water tank and small room, they threw stones in the well damaging the plastic pipes and while leaving the spot they took away starter, GI piples 200 in number, submersible motor, electric cable, four cement bags, 20 cement poles in the trolleys of the tractors. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the complainant claims to have taken actual possession of the land. According to her, the land is still joint between the co-sharers and that the land sold to the complainant is in excess of the share of the co-sharers, who have sold it to him. She has submitted that the complainant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is a co-sharer in possession of certain land against 70 co-sharers as also against Sub Registrar, Kanina. She has submitted that the complainant filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is a co-sharer in possession of certain land against 70 co-sharers as also against Sub Registrar, Kanina. According to her, when the other co-sharers including the petitioners opposed the said suit and even filed a counter claim, the complainant withdrew his suit and thereafter the counter claim kept pending in which status quo order was made. She has further submitted that the complainant was not in possession of the land in question and that he was making complaints with a view to pressurize the petitioners for allowing him to occupy certain land. According to her, the Sarpanch of the village, Israna had made a complaint to Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul against complainant Hari Ram alleging that he was trying to take forcible possession of the land belonging to Raghbir Parsad. He also complained that Hari Ram was disturbing the peace of the village. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that as per Annexure A/1, information obtained from DHBVN, Kanina authorities under the Right to Information Act, 2005, electric connection has still not been released in favour of Hari Ram. She has submitted that lower court, dismissing the application of the petitioners for bail, has relied on the release of the connection, which is not a fact. According to her, unless partitioned, there is no case of the complainant being in actual possession of any land and that there can be no question of any dacoity also. She has further submitted that the question as to which of the parties is aggressor would be decided at the trial and as the petitioners are in custody since 20.6.2011, they are entitled to be on bail during trial. 6. Learned State counsel assisted by learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted, on the other hand, that a road has passed through the land and the same has made the land on two sides of the road valuable. According to him, the parties are trying to grab the valuable land and therefore, the disputes have arisen. He has further submitted that the complainant is an outsider and he cannot be believed to have taken undue advantage of anything. 7. The petitioners are alleged to have come armed with fire arms. According to him, the parties are trying to grab the valuable land and therefore, the disputes have arisen. He has further submitted that the complainant is an outsider and he cannot be believed to have taken undue advantage of anything. 7. The petitioners are alleged to have come armed with fire arms. They are alleged to have entered the land, allegedly in possession of the complainant, firing shots from the guns. None of the shots was fired aiming at the complainant. At least, there is no such allegation in the complaint. Normally a complainant, while lodging the report, tries to embellish the version for making the offence graver. The fact that electric connection has yet not been released in favour of the complainant would show that his allegations of being in actual possession are not clearly established on the record. 8. The parties before me are the co-sharers in the land and they have not gone for partition of the land. Keeping in view all these circumstances and the fact that the petitioners are in custody since 20.6.2011 and no progress had been made at the trial, the petition is allowed. The petitioners are directed to be released on bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mohindergarh. ------------