Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab

was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.143 dated 23.8.2008, on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34 IPC by the police of Police Station Nurmahal, Distt.Jalandhar. Subsequently, after more than one year i.e. on 28.8.2009, offence punishable under section 376 IPC was also added against the accused.

5. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition deserves to be accepted in this context.

6. As is evident from the record that the matter was investigated by the Superintendent of Police, who submitted his report dated 3.12.2009 (Annexure P1), the operative part of which is as under:- “During the investigation and perusal of the case file, it was found out that in the village Kangniwal Chanan Ram s/o Pritu Ram owns a land 7 Marlas who is residing abroad in England with his family and he has given the attorney of his land measuring 7 Marlas to Mohan Lal s/o Kartara Ram r/o Kangniwal who takes care of that land. The complainant Sunita Rani who is grand-daughter of Chanan Ram has civil cases pending in court with him and wants to grab this land. For which reason Mohan Lal had got registered an FIR No.70 dated 29.04.08 under section 324, 323, 427, 34 IPC at PS Nurmahal which is pending adjudication in the court. Mohan Lal had got installed a government water tap in the land of Chanan Ram which was protested by Sunita Rani complainant and uprooted the water tap upon which Mohan Lal complained to the Sarpanch and this fact was verified by the Sarpanch Harpreet Singh village Kangniwal in his application dated

08.08.08 moved in the chowki Jandiala. For this very reason the complainant for the reason of exerting pressure CRM No.M-2659 of 2010 3 about the first case pending against her concocted a false incident and got registered this case no.143/08 PS Nurmahal against Chaman Lal, Niranjan Pal alias Kala, Mohan Lal and Chanan Ram. Mohan Lal was arrested on

28.08.09 and the names of Chaman Lal and Niranjan Pal have been found to have been falsely implicated for the reasons of nursing the grudge Because on 08.08.08 Mohan Lal had gathered the Panchayat regarding the uprooting of government tap by Sunita Rani and Chaman Lal and Niranjan Pal alias Kala had appeared as respectables in the Panchayat and they had alleged that Sunita Rani was a liar and that she was wrong. The Panchayat had recommended legal action against Sunita Rani through a written complaint, which is annexed with the file. The complainant has not got herself medically examined. From my investigation in this case Chaman Lal and Niranjan alias Kala are found to be innocent. If acceptable, the SHO Police Station may be directed to arrest the remaining accused in the case and proceed with the case.” Meaning thereby, the allegations levelled against the petitioner by the complainant were found to be false.

7. Moreover, a criminal case was registered, much prior to the present occurrence against the complainant, her mother and brother at the instance of the present petitioner Mohan Lal, in which, the accused have been charge sheeted for committing the house trespassed by entering into the house of Mohan Lal petitioner after having made preparation for causing hurt to him, armed with deadly weapons punishable under section 452 IPC and caused injuries to him punishable under sections 323, 324 and 427 read with section 34 IPC by the Judicial Magistrate, by virtue of order dated 10.10.2008 (Annexure P2).

8. It is not a matter of dispute that originally, the present case was registered under sections 323 and 325 read with section 34 IPC only, but subsequently, section 376 IPC was added after more than one year of the occurrence. Moreover, the prosecution claimed that the petitioner gave iron rod CRM No.M-2659 of 2010 4 and caused injuries on the head of the complainant, but the doctor did not find any such injury in the MLR (Annexure P5). Hence, there appears to be a clear contradiction in the ocular version and the medical evidence of the prosecution as well. The petitioner was arrested on 28.8.2009 and since then he is in judicial custody. He is no longer required for any purpose in detention in jail. The conclusion of trial will naturally take long time. Taking into consideration the previous litigation between the parties, the exaggeration and false implication of the accused by the complainant cannot be ruled out at this stage.

9. Therefore, keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, to me, the present petitioner is entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the present case.

10. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the case, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on his furnishing bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of trial Court.

11. Needless to state that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition.

12. Thus, the petition is disposed of accordingly.

21.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge