Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 548 (PNJ)

Amarjit Singh Kalar v. State of Punjab

2019-02-20

RAMENDRA JAIN

body2019
JUDGMENT : RAMENDRA JAIN, J. 1. Prayer in this petition under Section 438 Cr.P.C. has been made for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, in case, FIR No.130, dated 21.10.2015, registered under Sections 302, 307, 34 IPC (offence under Sections 218, 120-B IPC added later on) and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, at Police Station Bajakhana, District Faridkot. 2. According to the prosecution, on 14.10.2015, mob gathered in village Behbal Kalan, Police Station Bajakhanna, District Faridkot to raise protest for sacrilege incident of tearing pages of holly Shri Guru Granth Sahib and inaction of the police, in which the police opened fire, causing injuries to certain protesters and death of two persons. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner was allotted .38 bore revolver. No fire injury on the bodies of two deceased or any injured was found with .38 bore revolver. The petitioner has falsely been implicated on the basis of statement of Beant Singh. The complainant earlier appeared before the commission headed by Justice Jora Singh (Retd.) thereafter, before Justice Markande Katju, but did not name the petitioner. However, before second commission headed by Justice Ranjit Singh (Retd.), complainant for the first time after three years named the petitioner as one of the persons, who had, allegedly, fired on the mob. Two co-accused of the petitioner have been granted anticipatory bail. Therefore, treating the case of the petitioner on the same parity, he may also be granted the concession of anticipatory bail. 4. On the other hand, learned State counsel filing reply, contends that petitioner is the main accused, who is the author of FIR No.129 dated 14.10.2015, relating to the actual incident, but intentionally and deliberately did not add Section 302 IPC, despite death of two persons on the spot to shield himself and his higher officials. Even the petitioner after post-mortem of two persons, who had died in the incident, did not add Section 302 IPC, to derail the investigation. 5. That apart, learned counsel for the complainant, who also appeared and filed vakalatnama on his own without issuance of any notice, contends that from .38 bore revolver, any bullet of lesser size can be fired. Therefore, at this stage, argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that no fire arm injury on the bodies of two deceased or injured was found with .38 bore is not sustainable. 6. Therefore, at this stage, argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that no fire arm injury on the bodies of two deceased or injured was found with .38 bore is not sustainable. 6. Having given thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions, this Court is of view that it is the duty of the State to maintain law and order. Whenever, protestors about 500/600 in number gather on a particular place, it is impossible that they would not create any ruckus or chaos, disturbing law and order. In the instant case, some of the protestors were having swords, barcha etc. Three police vehicles were set ablaze. To control over such a situation, it was quite obvious and natural for the police to come in action to dispurse the mob. The court is conscious of the fact that two persons had died in the incident, but, the police party cannot be solely blamed for it, inasmuch as, without provocation from the mob, no police official ever dares to fire indiscriminately upon human beings. The role of the petitioner is under investigation, whose name appeared after three years of the incident, that too, before the subsequent second inquiry commission, headed by Justice Ranjit Singh (Retd.). As on date, no recovery is to be effected from the petitioner. Therefore, his custodial interrogation is not required. 7. List on 21.05.2019. 8. In the meantime, the petitioner shall join the investigation and would come present as and when called for and in the event of arrest, he shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioner shall also abide by the conditions as specified under Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. 9. To be heard along with CRM-M-6694-2019.