Gurvinder Singh v. State of U.T. Chandigarh

Mr.Sukant Gupta, Standing Counsel, for respondent-U.T. Chandigarh. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. CRM No.54556 of 2010 Notice of criminal miscellaneous application to learned Standing Counsel for U.T., Chandigarh. Mr.Sukant Gupta, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent U.T., Chandigarh, accepts notice. The petitioner had filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.49467 of 2010 for placing on record affidavit of injured-Vikram Singh dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure P-1) and medical record (Annexure P-2) of P.G.I, Chandigarh on record. The affidavit and medical record were marked as Annexures P-1 and P-2. However, compromise deed dated 11.06.2010 was already filed as Annexure P-1 with the main petition; besides, order dated 15.07.2010 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh, was marked as Annexure P-2. Therefore, it is prayed that the CRM No.54556 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No.M-23224 of 2010 ::2:: affidavit of injured-Vikram Singh dated 01.07.2010 be marked as Annexure P-4 and the medical record of P.G.I., Chandigarh be marked as Annexure P-5. Accordingly, the affidavit of injured-Vikram Singh dated

01.07.2010 is marked as Annexure P-4 and the medical record of P.G.I., Chandigarh is marked as Annexure P-5. The criminal miscellaneous application stands disposed of. CRM No.M-23224 of 2010 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner-Gurvinder Singh seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 25.02.2010 for the offences under Sections 323, 325, 506, 307 and 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Hardeep Singh. It is alleged by Hardeep Singh (complainant) that on 25.02.2010 at around 7.45 p.m., when he was at his home, he came to know that his elder brother Vikram @ Vicky was beaten up with gandasis and swords by some persons in the Palsora Market and after reaching there, he came to know that his brother has been taken to P.G.I. by a PCR van. The complainant reached the hospital and his elder brother-Vikram informed him that he was beaten up by Pinky (alias Sandeep), Goli (alias Kulwinder) who was working in the shop of dry cleaner at Phase 2 Mohali, Gurinder (alias Harinder Pal who has since been declared Proclaimed Offender) and Baba Patiala (alias Gurvinder Singh-the petitioner) due to an old dispute. They had quarreled with him in the market at Palsora. He could recognize all of them. All of them has beaten Vikram Singh with swords, gandasis and kulharis on his face and head. Many persons from the market had seen them while beating him. CRM No.54556 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No.M-23224 of 2010 ::3:: Besides, they had threatened to kill him while going. Hardeep Singh (complainant) knew Pinky (alias Sandeep), Goli (alias Kulwinder), Gurinder (alias Harinder Pal) and Baba Patiala (alias Gurvinder) very well because they all used to roam around with his brother and because of the said reason he knew Pinky (alias Sandeep), Goli (alias Kulwinder), Gurinder (alias Harinder Pal) and Baba Patiala (alias Gurvinder-petitioner). All of them have beaten his brother and injured him due to an old dispute. It was requested that legal action be taken. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the parties have now entered into a compromise (Annexure P-1). Besides, the injured Vikram Singh deposed an affidavit dated 01.07.2010 (Annexure P-4) wherein it is stated that Gurwinder Singh alias Baba Patiala (petitioner), Pinky, Harinder Pal and Goli alias Kulwinder were not the persons who have caused the injuries to him. There was a lot of rush at the time when the incident took pace and it was dark and he could not see the faces of the assailants. A reference has also been made to the medical record of P.G.I., Chandigarh, wherein the injuries on the person of the injured-Vikram Singh have been mentioned as laceration. It is submitted that all the accused were carrying sharp weapons and lacerated wounds cannot be caused with sharp weapons. Besides, it is submitted that Vikram Singh (injured) in any case has been discharged from the hospital and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. In response, learned counsel appearing for the U.T., Administration has submitted that the petitioner caused serious injuries in the market area and he is not entitled to the concession of bail. It is submitted that the petition seeking quashing of the FIR on the basis of compromise has been dismissed by this Court vide order passed on

13.10.2010. It is also stated that the petitioner is involved in three other CRM No.54556 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No.M-23224 of 2010 ::4:: FIRs i.e. FIR No.15 dated 04.03.2009 registered at Police Station Sohana for the offences under Sections 364 and 120-B IPC, FIR No.310 dated

27.08.2007 registered at Police Station SAS Nagar, Mohali for the offences under Section 25 of the Arms Act and FIR No.68 dated 10.04.2007 registered at Police Station Phase VIII, Mohali, for the offences under Sections 467 and 380 IPC. It is also submitted that the nature of injuries are not liable to be gone into at this stage and the fact that the same are lacerated would depend on the weapon and merely because the assailants were stated to be carrying gandasis, swords would not per se mean that they were having sharp edge weapons but the blunt side of the said weapons could be used. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter, heard learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance gone through the record. The case of quashing of the FIR on the basis of the compromise indeed has been dismissed by this Court. However, the parameters of consideration of grant of bail and that of quashing of FIR are somewhat different. The order declining the quashing of the FIR would not per se mean that the accused are liable for the offences and their guilt is proved. The guilty of the accused is to be established and proved by the prosecution by leading evidence. The fact that the petitioner has compromised the matter is to be gone into and is to be considered by the trial court. In case, the complainant resiles from his statement made before the Police, it is for the Public Prosecutor to get them declared hostile and cross-examine them. This Court is not to undertake the task in the proceedings for grant of bail. This is the domain of the learned trial Court after the charges have been framed. The injured-Vikram Singh, indeed, has been discharged from the hospital. The nature of the injures that are suffered by CRM No.54556 of 2010 and Crl. Misc. No.M-23224 of 2010 ::5:: him are to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court after examination of the doctors. The fact that the petitioner is involved in three other cases would per se not be a ground not to grant bail in the present case. The mere fact that other FIRs have been registered is a circumstance to be taken into consideration for the purpose that the petitioner would not interfere in the prosecution case or that he would not misuse the concession of bail while at large. In the cases that have been registered against the petitioner admittedly he is on bail in the said cases. The petitioner is in custody since 10.06.2010 and the further custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. The challan in the case has been filed. In the facts and circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and two sureties to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandigarh, shall be admitted to bail. However, one of the sureties to be furnished by the petitioner shall be of a respectable person who shall along with the petitioner undertake that while on bail, the petitioner shall maintain peace and good behaviour and in the event of breach of peace or failure to maintain good behaviour, would entail the cancellation of bail that has been granted. October 15, 2010 sukhpreet (S.S. SARON) JUDGE