Sukha Singh v. State of Punjab

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.J.S.Thind, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.C.S.Brar, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondent-State. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) Petitioner-Sukha Singh son of Tarlok Singh, has applied for regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Dharam Singh, Sarabjit Singh @ Sabha, Gurdev Singh, Gora, Jassa, Jageer Kaur and Sokhi etc., by means of FIR No.113 dated 09.09.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Goindwal Sahib, District Tarn Taran, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C.

Notice of the petition was issued to the State. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, the instant petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

According to the prosecution that, as soon as the complainant-party was putting earth in the pit, in the meantime, the accused came there. Dharam CRM No.M-20819 of 2012 2 Singh, accused was stated to have raised a 'lalkara', whereas Sarabjit Singh @ Sabha(main accused) caused a 'spade'(kahi) blow, which landed on the head of Suwinder Singh. It is not a matter of dispute that, petitioner-Sukha Singh was empty handed and no injury is attributed to him. The only allegation alleged against him is that he threw brick-bats lying in the street. No other specific role or overt-act is assigned to the petitioner. Moreover, the main injury is attributed to Sarabjit Singh @ Sabha(non-petitioner). Under these circumstances, whether the provisions of Sections 148 and 149 IPC, are attracted or not, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 07.011.2011 and since then he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required to be detained in jail for any other purpose. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the charges have not yet been framed against the accused by the trial Court, so, the conclusion of trial would naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, oozing out 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, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court. August 14, 2012 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) JUDGE