Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 849 (PNJ)

Harmesh Singh v. State of Punjab

2012-07-04

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR

body2012
JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.: (Oral) - Petitioner Harmesh Singh son of Raghbir Singh, has applied for the grant of regular bail, in a case registered against him and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.83 dated 4.7.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 307, 323 and 506 read with section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Lalru, District Mohali, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. The crux of the prosecution version is that on 4.7.2011, complainant Amarjeet Singh was present in the fields alongwith his father Harnam Singh, grand father Pritam Singh and paternal uncle Bhupinder Singh in order to cultivate the land. Meanwhile, at about 8 AM, Harmesh Singh (petitioner), Harpal Singh, Avtar Singh, Rinka, Laddi, Kaku, Raghvir Singh, Giyan Singh, Rimi, Kala & Dharam Singh armed with gandasis, iron rods, wooden sticks, lathi and swords came there, started abusing them and told them to vacate the land. Thereafter, Rinka and Avtar Singh gave stick blows on the left hand and back of complainant. Laddi gave iron rod on his left wrist with iron rod. According to the prosecution that petitioner Harmesh Singh drove his tractor over both the legs of Harnam Singh, father of the complainant, as a result of which, his legs were fractured. Raghbir Singh gave a gandasi blow on the head of father of complainant, Kaku gave iron rod on his arms, as a result thereof, his arms were also broken. Laddi gave a blow with Saria in the abdomen of father of the complainant. Giyan Singh gave two blows with lathi on the right temple and right eye of the grand father of the complainant. Raghbir Singh gave a gandasi blow on the right leg of Bhupinder Singh PW and Dharam Singh gave a gandasi blow with blunt side on his (Bhupinder Singh) head. Rimpi gave a kirpan blow in the abdomen of father of the complainant. Kala gave a danda blow on the head of complainant. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that all the accused caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted hereinabove. 4. Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, according to the prosecution that all the accused caused injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, the present case was registered against the accused in the manner depicted hereinabove. 4. Notice of the application was issued to the State. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant application for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context. 6. As is evident from the record, that prosecution claimed that the accused party caused multiple injuries to the complainant party with their respective weapons. It is not a matter of dispute that all the accused, except the present petitioner, have already been allowed bail in this case. Civil litigation between the parties is pending, in which, they were directed to maintain status quo with regard to land in dispute. It is a case of cross version recorded by the police and the accused party has also filed a private criminal complaint against the complainant party for the commission of offences punishable under sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC etc. in regard to the same very incident. Which of the parties was in possession & was aggressor and whether the provisions of Sections 307/149 IPC are attracted or not, would be the moot points to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. 7. Be that as it may, all other accused have already been allowed bail in this case. The petitioner was arrested on 3.9.2011. Since then he is in judicial custody. Since the prosecution has not examined even a single witness, so, the trial would naturally take a long time. There is no history of previous involvement of petitioner in any other criminal case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of all facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant application is hereby accepted. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of all facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of the main case, the instant application is hereby accepted. The petitioner is directed to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. 9. Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits during the trial of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present application in this relevant direction. ---------0.B.S.0------------