Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 1448 (PNJ)

Jatinder Pal Singh Shergill v. State Of Punjab

2021-07-30

GURVINDER SINGH GILL

body2021
JUDGMENT Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - This is the third petitioin filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.85 dated 22.5.2020 at Police Station Anaj Mandi, Patiala, District Patiala under Sections 302, 148, 149, 506, 201 of Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of Arms Act, the earlier two petitions having been withdrawn. 2. The FIR was lodged at the instance of Davinder, wherein it is alleged that on 21.5.2020 when he alongwith his brother Shamsher Singh, their nephew Vansh Kumar were proceeding towards Bharat Nagar on foot, and at about 9:15 p.m. when they reached near Mazar of Baba in Street No.4, they saw Kunwar Randip Singh @ SK Khrore, Saajan, Abbu, Lali armed with 'kirpan', Chand Mohammad, Phool Mohammad armed with 'gandasa', Pawan @ Punnu armed with iron rod, Tara Dutt, Jatinder Pal armed with 'gandasa', Parmod @ Modi armed with rod, Vicky Topi, Twinkel armed with 'kirpan', Prince Chakki Wala armed with 'gandasi' alongwith 5-6 unidentified persons. When complainant's brother reached near them, SK Khrore exhorted his companions to catch hold of complainant's brother Shamsher Singh and said that he be not spared. SK Khrore, Abbu and Chand Mohammad took out pistols from their pockets and fired in the air. Sajjan took out pistol from his pocket and fired straight towards complainant's brother with an intention to kill him. The shot hit below the arm pit of complainant's brother Shamsher Singh, who tried to run and fell down after a few steps. The complainant and his nephew also ran for cover. All the other accused were raising 'lalkaras' to kill Shamsher Singh. Lalli armed with 'kirpan', Chand Mohammad armed with 'gandasa', Pawan @ Punnu armed with rod, Jatinder Shergill armed with 'gandasa', Parmod @ Modi armed with rod, Twinkel armed with 'kirpan', Prince Chakki Wala armed with 'gandasa', all raised their weapons and stated loudly that he has been killed. Tara Dutt, Vicky Topi Wala etc. threw stones and brickbats towards the complainant but they managed to save their lives. It is further alleged that thereafter the accused went away from the spot in their vehicles. Although the complainant and his nephew arranged for a vehicle and took complainant's brother to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala but he was declared dead. 3. Tara Dutt, Vicky Topi Wala etc. threw stones and brickbats towards the complainant but they managed to save their lives. It is further alleged that thereafter the accused went away from the spot in their vehicles. Although the complainant and his nephew arranged for a vehicle and took complainant's brother to Rajindera Hospital, Patiala but he was declared dead. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the complainant has made an attempt to rope in a large number of accused although there is hardly any evidence to substantiate the involvement of all the accused. Learned counsel has submitted that even if the allegations, as such, are taken to be correct, still no injury is attributed to the petitioner, who is simply stated to be present armed with a 'gandasa'. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that infact the version as put forth in the FIR is contradictory to the version put forth by the other witnesses. The learned counsel, in this regard, has first of all referred to the statement (Annexure P-7) of Deepak Kumar recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C., wherein while describing the occurrence in question he has simply stated that Jatinder Shergill was standing alongwith other accused. The petitioner was not armed with any weapon. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the statement (Annexure P-8) of Parveen Kumar, which is also to a similar effect. A reference has also been made to the statements of the aforesaid Deepak Kumar and Parveen Kumar recorded in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C., wherein they have taken altogether different stand and have stated that Jatinder Shergill was armed with a pistol, which was handed over to Sajjan, who fired from the same. It has been submitted that the aforesaid inconsistent versions clearly show that it is a case of false implication, which is further substantiated from the fact that during the course of investigation the police has given clean-chit to as many as 5 of the accused. 6. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner happens to be specifically named in the FIR and was part of an unlawful assembly, which had attacked the complainant and his brother with a premeditated object of killing complainant's brother and has successfully eliminated him, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. 6. Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that since the petitioner happens to be specifically named in the FIR and was part of an unlawful assembly, which had attacked the complainant and his brother with a premeditated object of killing complainant's brother and has successfully eliminated him, no case for grant of anticipatory bail is made out. Learned State counsel has further informed that infact the conduct of the petitioner, who has been evading his arrest since long, do not justify grant of bail. 7. I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 8. The FIR certainly shows that the petitioner was present at the spot alongwith co-accused and was carrying a 'gandasa'. Although there is no specific attribution of any injury to the petitioner, but apparently he was part of an unlawful assembly, which had gathered to commit a heinous crime of the nature of murder. Although, this Court does find that there is some inconsistency in the role of the petitioner in the statements of Deepak Kumar and of his brother Parveen Kumar recorded in terms of Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also in terms of Section 164 Cr.P.C. but such like inconsistencies, at this stage, cannot be interpreted to mean that the petitioner has been falsely implicated particularly when the presence of petitioner as per the FIR, as per the statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and as per the statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. is not disputed. 9. The petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.