Baj Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S. Sudhalkar, J.

The petitioner has been arrested in connection with F.I.R. No. 7 dated 20.1.1996, under Sections 302/201/364/148/149 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code and has given this application for being released on bail.

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the name of the petitioner is not mentioned in the FIR. According to the FIR, the translated version of which is quoted in the petition itself, the complaint was given by Harbans Singh who has stated that deceased Dilbag Singh, who is younger son of the complainant used to go daily in the fields with Hira Singh for the care of the crops. The complainant has contended that on 20.1.1996 Dilbag did not return home. He (complainant) went to Tarn Taran for holy bath and when he returned in the evening, his son Dilbag had not returned. Then the complainant went to his cousin (uncle''s son) Darshan Singh at his residence who told him that on the previous day at about 5.30/5.45 p.m., he was returning to his house from Mallanwala through a path. At that time Karnail Singh, Jaswinder Singh alias Sinda, Bhag Singh and Dilbag Singh deceased were going towards tubewell of Karnail Singh. The complainant has further stated that he has doubt that his son Dilbag Singh has been abducted by Karnail Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Bhag Singh and others with intention to kill him. He has further stated that on the previous evening, his son was wearing a Ricoh make watch, a silver ring, on which "ek omkar" was written. It is, therefore, clear that the name of the petitioner is not in the FIR. The FIR is not given by any eyewitness, or the information is not from any person who is eyewitness, except that Darshan Singh had told that deceased was seen, on the previous day, with the persons named above.

Learned AAG has produced translated version of the statements of Tirlok Singh son of Dhana Singh, and Baj Singh son of Jagtar Singh, and copies of farad inkashaf, farad recovery of dead body, farad inkashaf watch and farad recovery of watch.

Tirlok Singh son of Dhana Singh is a resident of Allewala and is doing agricultural work. He has stated, in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., that Jaswinder Singh, Karnail Singh, Bhag Singh, Baj Singh petitioner and Bagicha Singh came to him and Baj Singh confessed his guilt and stated that Baj Singh and others mentioned above killed Dilbag Singh and since Tirlok Singh have got good relations with the police, he may produce them before the police and they will get the dead body recovered. According to Tirlok Singh, Jaswinder Singh, Karnail Singh, Bhag Singh, Bagicha Singh and petitioner confessed their guilt when Tirlok Singh called them one by one. It is not necessary for the purpose of bail to reproduce the version of each of the persons (accused). This evidence is an extrajudicial confession and is made after the investigation started.

Learned AAG has also relied on the statement of Baj Singh, petitioner, but he being the accused, his confessional statement will not be of any help to the prosecution, for the purpose of deciding bail application.

The farad recovery of the dead body is not clear as to which of the accused pointed out as to where the dead body was, because the recovery was made on the statement jointly by many accused. There is nothing in the statement that as to who led the police party to the place of recovery and as to who pointed out the place of concealment of dead body. This being so, I am not inclined to detain the accusedpetitioner in custody till the pendency of trial, on the basis of such evidence.

From the farad inkashaf/farad recovery of watch, it is only found that one Ricoh watch of 17 jewels was recovered at the instance of petitioner. It was found from a sugarcane field, apparently from an open place. There is no evidence to show prima facie that the said watch belongs to the deceased.

In view of the above discussion, I find that prima facie this is not a case where the petitioner can be detained in custody till the trial is over. Hence this petition is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of Rs. 15,000/ with one surety in the like amount. Bail bond be furnished before the trial court/CJM, Ferozepur.

The observations made above are restricted for the purpose of this bail application only and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case at the time of trial.