12.2010 Jaskaran Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab

The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sukhdeep Singh. In the FIR, it is alleged that at 5.00 O' clock in the morning on the day of the incident i.e. 10.07.2008, the accused as mentioned in the FIR along with 8-10 other unidentified persons came on a tractor-trolley with deadly weapons raising lalkaras that Santokh Singh and others be taught a lesson for entering in their land. The name of Jaskaran Singh (petitioner No.1) is mentioned in the FIR, although, the names of Gurpreet Singh and Jagtar Singh (petitioners No.2 and 3) are not mentioned. It is alleged that the accused persons started beating the complainant side with their weapons and the persons of the complainant side were badly injured. While leaving also, the assailants fired. On the way to the hospital, Hardev Singh and Labh Singh died and rest of the injured were admitted in the hospital. It is alleged that the accused had murdered Hardev Singh and Crl. Misc. No.M-35502 of 2010 ::2:: Labh Singh by causing injuries; besides, they had badly injured Santokh Singh, Baldev Singh, Subhash Chand, Jeet Singh and Harbans Singh with an intention to kill them. The motive for the occurrence was that the accused persons had stopped the uncle of the complainant namely Santokh Singh from entering the land owned by him and which he had purchased. The FIR in the case was registered against Mohinder Singh, Budh Singh, Surjit Singh, Sukhdev Singh, Nachhattar Singh, Buta Singh, Amarjit Singh and against the petitioners as also against Baldev Singh son of Hakam Singh and Baldev Singh son of Dalip Singh. After registration of the FIR, applications were submitted by Dulla Singh (father of Jaskaran Singh-petitioner No.1) on the basis of which an enquiry was conducted by the Superintendent of Police (Detective), Bathinda. In the enquiry, statements of various persons of village Gehri Bhagi were recorded. The Inquiry Officer found that petitioners No.2 and 3 used to cultivate 12 acres of land after jointly taking it on lease and they had been cultivating it for the last 3-4 years. Besides, they were cultivating some other land. The Inquiry Officer concluded that the petitioners No.2 and 3 were at the house of Dhan Singh (maternal grand-father of Mandeep Singh) in village Mann Wala. It was further observed that on 09.07.2008, late at night, the incident had occurred at village Gehribhagi for taking possession of land of Nachhattar Singh as Santokh Singh and his party men had started cultivating the said land. The DSP observed that at that time, Gurpreet Singh (petitioner No.1) and Jagtar Singh (petitioner No.3) were not present at the place of the occurrence in village Gehribhagi. Rather they were at the house of maternal grand-father of Mandeep Singh at village Mann Wala. Therefore, they were innocent in the case and their names had been entered at a later stage. Crl. Misc. No.M-35502 of 2010 ::3:: An enquiry was also conducted by a team comprising of Superintendent of Police (Detective) Bathinda, Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Rural) Bathinda and SHO, Police Station Sangat, District Bathinda, on an application submitted by the father of Jaskaran Singh (petitioner No.1). In the enquiry, the statements of various persons of village Jassi Pao Wali, Gehri Devi Nagar as well as of village Teona were recorded. In the enquiry, it was found that petitioner No.1 was innocent and he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. The petitioner No.1 had gone to village Teona and thereafter, to village Narang to settle some dispute there. Thereafter, he had come back from village Narang and stayed in village Teona. Therefore, it is submitted that the petitioners were found innocent by the police by conducting two different enquiries, in which the petitioners, it was observed, were not present at the spot at the time of alleged occurrence. The petitioners were accordingly not sent up for trial and kept in Column No.2 of the charge report (Challan). The petitioners have now been summoned on an application submitted by the prosecution in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C.. The application has been moved after recording the statement of Santokh Singh (PW-7). The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in terms of her order dated 17.11.2010 has referred to the statement of Santokh Singh (PW-7) in which he has named Jaskaran Singh (petitioner No.1) as also Gupreet Singh (petitioner No.2) and Jagtar Singh (petitioner No.3). It is alleged that the assailants were armed with dangs, gandasa ghopes, iron rods and Takuas. Nachhattar Singh gave a lalkara that Santokh Singh and others be taught a lesson for ploughing their land. Thereafter, Amarjit Singh gave a gandasa blow which hit the complainant below the right knee. Nachhattar Singh gave takua blow with its reverse side which hit on Crl. Misc. No.M-35502 of 2010 ::4:: his (complainant's) right ankle. Then, Buta Singh gave a reverse blow with his weapon which hit on his head above the right ear. Then, Santokh Singh fell down on the ground. In order to rescue him, his brother Hardev Singh stepped forward. Then, all the above said persons caused multiple injuries on the person of Hardev Singh and broke both his legs. Thereafter, Amarjit Singh ran his tractor over the body of Hardev Singh. Santokh Singh was seeing the occurrence while he lay on the ground. The learned Additional Sessions Judge observed that Santokh Singh (injured) was cross-examined by the accused who were facing trial but nothing came out in his cross-examination so as to discredit his testimony as regards the role of the persons mentioned in the application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. who have been summoned. It was observed that cogent and consistent testimony of Santokh Singh showed that Jaskaran Singh (petitioner No.1), Baldev Singh son of Hakam Singh, Gurpreet Singh (petitioner No.2), Baldev Singh son of Dalip Singh and Jagtar Singh (petitioner No.3) son of Surjit Singh had caused injuries to Santokh Singh, Baldev Singh, Harbans Singh, Hardev Singh, Subhash Chand, Labh Singh and Jit Singh with their respective weapons, as a result of which, condition of Labh Singh, Harbans Singh and Sukhdev Singh was serious who succumbed to their injuries. Therefore, it was observed that the petitioners along with others had committed the offence of 302 IPC etc. and also under Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, they have been summoned. The case relates to death of three persons in the incident that occurred on 10.07.2008. The petitioners in terms of the order dated

17.11.2010 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., have been found to be involved in the incident. However, they were not sent up for trial by the prosecution. In Crl. Misc. No.M-35502 of 2010 ::5:: two separate enquiries, the petitioners were found innocent. One enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (Detective) Bathinda and he submitted his report dated 07.09.2008 in this regard. The second enquiry was conducted by Superintendent of Police (Rural) Bathinda and SHO, Police Station, Sangat and the report was submitted on 24.11.2008. In the said enquiry also, the petitioners were ordered to be kept in Column No.2 of the charge report (Challan). The case indeed is serious in nature and no ground for the grant of pre-arrest bail is made out. However, it may be noticed that at one stage, the petitioners were found innocent in two separate inquiries and were not sent up for trial. Therefore, it would be just and expedient if the regular bail of the petitioners is considered by the learned trial Court itself which is possessed of all the relevant and necessary material and till such consideration, the petitioners be admitted to interim bail as they were indeed found innocent in the enquiries. Accordingly, the application seeking pre-arrest bail is dismissed. However, in case the petitioners appear before the learned trial Court within 3 days of the receipt of the copy of this order and file an application for grant of regular bail, the same shall be considered expeditiously by the learned trial Court and preferably within 2 weeks and till such consideration, the petitioners shall be admitted to interim bail on their furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the case on the basis of material as available before it and uninfluenced by any observations made in this order. December 07, 2010 sukhpreet (S.S. SARON) JUDGE