Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2015 (PNJ)

Satnam Singh v. State of Punjab

2022-11-21

GURVINDER SINGH GILL

body2022
JUDGMENT Gurvinder Singh Gill, J. - This order shall dispose off the above mentioned three petitions filed on behalf of Satnam Singh, Avtar Singh @Tari and Ramandeep Singh seeking grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.142 dated 30.9.2020 under Sections 307, 341, 323, 324, 326, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25, 27, 54,59 of the Arms Act at Police Station Khem Karan, District Tarn Taran. 2. The FIR in the present case was lodged at the instance of Balwinder Singh wherein it is alleged that on 26.9.2020, he alongwith his brother Salwinder Singh had been summoned at Police Station Khem Karan in respect of a dispute with Harpreet Singh. However, since Harpreet Singh did not turn up at the Police Station, they were asked to report again on 27.9.2020 and accordingly on the next day, he alongwith his brother again went to the police Station. Even, his brother Jaimal Singh as well as other residents of the village reached at police station. However, even on the said day i.e. 27.9.2020, the opposite party i.e. Harpreet Singh and others did not turn up till evening. Accordingly, in the evening Salwinder Singh and Jaimal Singh started back on one motorcycle while the complainant i.e. Balwinder Singh son of Gajjan Singh and Balwinder Singh son of Virsa Singh started on another motorcycle. Mehar Singh also accompanied them on third motorcycle. When they were near Defence Bridge Mehndipur, they were waylaid by Satnam Singh, Harjinder Singh, Avtar Singh who were all carrying 12 bore rifles, who suddenly came out of the bushes and started firing at them and on account of which Salwinder Singh and Jaimal Singh sustained injuries. Jaimal Singh and Salwinder Singh fell down on the road. Dulla Singh and Mehtab Singh, both armed with 'datars', Gurmail Singh and Gurlal Singh carring 'kirpans', Veera and Raja carrying 'datars' caused grievous injuries to Salwinder Singh on his legs, arms and hands and also inflicted a large number of injuries to Jaimal Singh. Harpreet Singh, who was also carrying 'datar' inflicted blow to Jaimal Singh which virtually severed his left wrist. Ramandeep Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Bunty who were carrying 'datars', Gurbhej Singh and Navdeep Singh who were carrying swords accompanied by 4-5 unidentified persons who were carrying baseball bats inflicted injuries with their respective weapons. Harpreet Singh, who was also carrying 'datar' inflicted blow to Jaimal Singh which virtually severed his left wrist. Ramandeep Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Bunty who were carrying 'datars', Gurbhej Singh and Navdeep Singh who were carrying swords accompanied by 4-5 unidentified persons who were carrying baseball bats inflicted injuries with their respective weapons. When the complainant raised alarm, the assailants fled away from the spot carrying their respective weapons. 3. The learned counsel representing the petitioners have submitted that a false FIR has been lodged by the complainant wherein an attempt has been made to rope in a large number of accused. It has been submitted that while as many as 15 persons has been specifically named in the FIR, subsequently upon statement of an injured Salwinder Singh, another five persons were also additionally nominated as accused. It has further been submitted that the falsity of the allegations, as levelled in the FIR, would be evident from the fact that upon completion of investigation only 8 persons had been challaned by the police. The learned counsel have further submitted that although three persons are alleged to be armed with rifles and are stated to have fired at the injured but as a matter of fact it is a case wherein only a total of three firearm injuries were found on the injured and out of which two of the injuries can at best be in respect of one firearm shot only being entry and exist wounds. The learned counsel has further submitted that in any case, since the petitioners have been behind bars since the last more than 2 years and trial has not even commenced, the petitioners cannot be kept behind bars for an indefinite period. The petitioners also stake their claim on ground of parity with co-accused Gurbhej Singh and Gurmail Singh who have already been ordered to released on bail by the trial Court vide order dated 5.8.2022 and order dated 26.10.2022. 4. The petitioners also stake their claim on ground of parity with co-accused Gurbhej Singh and Gurmail Singh who have already been ordered to released on bail by the trial Court vide order dated 5.8.2022 and order dated 26.10.2022. 4. Opposing the petitions, the learned State counsel has submitted that it is a case where as many as two persons were injured by the accused and that while one injured Jaimal Singh was found to be sustaining as many as 43 injuries, the injured Salwinder Singh was found to have sustained as many as 8 injuries and that in these circumstances, the same cannot be said to be a handiwork of two or three accused only but apparently the same had been caused by a large number of accused and thus, it cannot be said that it is a case where exaggerations have been made in the FIR by falsely implicating large number of accused. The learned State counsel has informed that the petitioners otherwise have been behind bars since the last more than 2 years and 1 month and stand involved in one more case. It has also been informed that as many as 46 prosecution witnesses have been cited, none of which has been examined till date. 5. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court. 6. It is a case where all of three petitioners are specifically named in the FIR and are alleged to have caused injuries. While the petitioners Avtar Singh @ Tari and Satnam Singh are alleged to be carrying rifles, the petitioner Ramandeep Singh is alleged to be carrying a 'datar'. All the accused including the petitioners collectively had inflicted as many as 51 injuries i.e. 43 on the person of Jaimal Singh and 8 on the person of Salwinder Singh. Though, the allegations prima facie do suggest the involvement of the petitioners but this Court cannot overlook the fact that the petitioners have been behind bars for a substantial period of more than 2 years. The trial has not even commenced till date and as many as 43 prosecution witnesses have been cited. Conclusion of trial, in these circumstances, is likely to consume a substantial time in the normal circumstances. As such, further detention of the petitioners will not serve any useful purpose. 7. The trial has not even commenced till date and as many as 43 prosecution witnesses have been cited. Conclusion of trial, in these circumstances, is likely to consume a substantial time in the normal circumstances. As such, further detention of the petitioners will not serve any useful purpose. 7. All the three petitions, as such, are accepted and the petitioners are ordered to be released on regular bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned. 8. It is, however, clarified that in case the petitioners are found to threaten or intermidate the eye-witnesses, it shall be open to the complainant to move an appropriate application before the trial Court seeking cancellation of bail on such grounds. 9. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected cases.