Amarjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Petitioner''s learned counsel submits that the petitioner''s father and brothers are in custody since June, 1994 as they are facing murder trial. According to him, one of the respondents fired at petitioner''s relation, but instead of hitting him, it hit at Narinder Pal Singh, their own person, who died at the spot. Because of death of Narinder Pal Singh, petitioner''s father and brothers are facing this murder trial.

Petitioner has lodged a private complaint on the basis of which respondents have been summoned and have been charged under Sections 302/307/326/324/323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. In this complaint, respondents 2 to 4 have been granted bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is alleged by the petitioner that his life is in danger at the hands of respondents 2 to 4 because they have been summoned and have been charged for murder in this complaint case. Petitioner is left alone. On all these grounds, he submits that bail granted to the respondents 2 to 4 vide order dated 30.9.1997 (Annexure P1) be cancelled.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 contends that this complaint was filed after about 5 months of the said incident. No doubt these respondents are facing murder trial on the basis of this complaint, but in the State case wherein petitioner''s father and brothers are facing murder trial, the trial is already concluded. It is at the stage of hearing final arguments. Since under the orders of the High Court, this complaint case as well as the State case (both being murder cases arising out of the same incident) are being taken up together by the learned Sessions Judge. This complaint case is also at the fag end; 12th March, 1998 is fixed for recording the defence evidence. He submits that these respondents are going to examine only one witness on this date and then this complaint case will also be ripen for final arguments. On these facts, he submits that both these murder cases are likely to be decided by the end of March, 1998.

Learned counsel appearing for respondents 2 to 4 also submits that no doubt, the petitioner has expressed that he has apprehension to his life at the hands of these respondents because he alone is outside the jail; his father and brothers are in jail, but he has not mentioned any incident after 30.9.1997 when any of these respondents have done anything towards his life. On these facts, he submits that the petition filed under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure be dismissed.

From the above submissions, it is evident that this complaint on the basis of which charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code is framed against these respondents 2 to 4 was lodged after about 5 months of the incident. Petitioner''s father and brothers are facing murder trial on the basis of the First Information Report lodged by respondent No. 2 Sukhwinder Singh under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. As per the orders of the High Court, both these cases are required to be decided together. In the State case, evidence is concluded, even the defence evidence is recorded and the case is at the arguments stage. In the complaint case, complainant has already examined all his witnesses. Accused persons have been examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and now it is fixed for defence evidence on 12.3.1998.

As per submissions of respondents'' learned counsel these respondents are going to examine only one witness, who will be produced on 12.3.1998. Thus, it is apparent that both these murder cases may be decided either by the end of March, 1998 or at the most in the month of April, 1998.

So far as apprehension expressed by the petitioner is concerned, no incident is alleged whereby his life was threatened by these respondents or any criminal act was done by these respondents towards him. Such vague allegations can be made against any accused at any point of time. There is no allegation that these respondents have not attended this murder case or have tried to influence the witnesses or have tried to hinder the progress of any of these cases.

Hence, no ground is made out to cancel the bail order (Annexure P1) granted in their favour under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Accordingly, finding no merit in this petition, it is hereby dismissed.