Amrinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No. M-16058 of 2014 titled Amrinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-18112 of 2014 titled Manvir Singh Vs. State of Punjab (in short "2nd case), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.

Petitioners, have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against them along with other co-accused, vide FIR No. 122 dated 04.09.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 316, 452, 342 and 323 read with Section 34 IPC, by the police of Police Station Sidhwan Bet, District Ludhiana.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on May 12, 2014, in 1st case :-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that petitioner has been falsely implicated in this case by the complainant being the relative of his aunt Kanwaljit Kaur. She is unmarried, old lady and is residing alone in her house. The complainant party intends to grab her property without any legal right, has hatched a criminal conspiracy and lodged the present false case against the accused to put pressure and to wreak vengeance. In the wake of application dated 19.11.2013 (Annexure P-4) of Kanwaljit Kaur, after a detailed enquiry of Commissioner of Police, Jalandhar recommended to delete the offence punishable u/s 452 IPC as the place of occurrence was the house owned and possessed by Kanwaljit Kaur. It was further recommended that a medical board be constituted for opinion regarding the miscarriage of Arshdeep Kaur, vide enquiry report dated 18.01.2014 (Annexure P-5). As per medical opinion (Annexure P-6), no external injury on her abdomen or internal bleeding was detected.

The argument is that neither any specific role nor any particular injury is attributed to the petitioner. Rajinder Singh, co-accused of the petitioner was granted the concession of regular bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, by virtue of order dated 21.11.2013 in CRM-M No. 38599 of 2013 (Annexure P-9) whereas Kanwaljit Kaur, co-accused of the petitioner was also granted the concession of anticipatory bail, by means of order dated 18.03.2014 in CRM-M No. 6454 of 2014 (Annexure P-10). Moreover, it is a case of version and cross version and which of the party was the aggressor would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 26.05.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.

Sequelly, similar order was passed on May 23, 2014, in 2nd case, as well.

At the very outset, on instructions from HC Rajinder Singh, learned State Counsel, has acknowledged the relevant factual matrix and submitted that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. They are no longer required for further interrogation, at this stage. There is no history of their previous involvement in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bails already granted to the petitioners by this Court, by virtue of orders dated May 12, 2014 (in 1st case) & May 23, 2014 (in 2nd case), are hereby made absolute, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.