Baldev Singh vs State of Punjab

S.S.Saron, J.—Heard counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner - Baldev Singh son of Hakam Singh seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 10.7.2008 for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 325, 356, 336, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

Learned Counsel for the State and the complainant submit that the case relates to death of three persons. The co-accused of the Petitioner namely Jaskaran Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Jagtar Singh had filed and their application for pre-arrest bail was dismissed by this Court on 7.12.2010. It was, however, ordered that in case the said accused appear before the learned trial Court within three days of the receipt of a copy of the said order and they file an application for the grant of regular bail, the same was ordered to be considered expeditiously by the trial Court and preferably within two weeks and till such consideration, the said accused, it was ordered, be admitted to interim bail on their furnishing personal bond and surety each to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

It may be noticed that the FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sukhdeep Singh. The accused as mentioned in the FIR along with 8-10 other unidentified persons came on a tractor trolley carrying deadly weapons on 10.8.2008 at 5 O�Clock in the morning. They raised Lalkaras that Santokh Singh and others be taught a lesson for entering in their lands. The statement of Santokh Singh (PW7) has been recorded. On the strength of the said statement, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bathinda, vide her order dated 17.11.2010 (P3) has observed that the consistent testimony of said Santokh Singh (PW7) shows that Jaskaran Singh, Baldev Singh (Petitioner) son of Hakam Singh, Gurpret Singh, Baldev Singh son of Dalip Singh and Jagtar 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 became serious who succumbed to their injuries. Therefore, it was observed, that the aforesaid accused have committed offences under Sections 302, 325, 323, 356, 336, 148 and 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. They have been summoned in terms of the said order. The Petitioner, however, was not sent up for trial as in two separate inquiries, he was found innocent. One inquiry was conducted by SP (D) Bathinda, who submitted his report dated 7.9.2008 (P4). The second inquiry was conducted by the SP (Rural) and SHO PS Sangat. Their report was submitted on 24.11.2008. In the said reports also, the Petitioner was kept in column No. 2 of the charge report (challan) that was filed.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted that the case of the Petitioner is different from that of Jaskaran Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Jagtar Singh whose application for bail has been declined on 7.12.2010. It is submitted that the Petitioner is a Secretary of Bhartiya Kisan Union. A reference has been made to the inquiry report dated 7.9.2008 (P4) in which the Petitioner has been found innocent. It is submitted that in fact a number of persons had attacked Nachhattar Singh whose land had surreptitiously been sold by his Commission Agent - Surinder Kumar by taking a power of attorney in the year 2002. The sale of this land was made in favour of Jaswant Singh resident of village Jassi Pau Wali, who further sold it to Darshan Chand, Gurmail Chand sons of Lal Chand. It is submitted that despite various transactions, Nachhattar Singh was not dispossessed from the land. It is on 22/23.6.2008 when Santokh Singh tried to take possession of the land then Budh Singh got FIR registered against Santokh Singh, etc. on 25.6.2008. It is submitted that the Petitioner had only supported Nachhattar Singh.

The contentions as raised, however, would more appropriately be considered by the learned trial Court which is seized of the matter. The case is indeed serious in nature inasmuch as three persons were murdered and five injured.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out. However, the Petitioner was found innocent in two separate inquiries and was not sent up for trial. Therefore, it would be just and expedient if the application for regular bail of the Petitioner is considered by the learned trial Court itself which is seized of all the material necessary for consideration and till such consideration, the Petitioner is admitted to interim bail as he was found innocent in two separate inquiries.

Accordingly, this application seeking pre-arrest bail is dismissed. However, in case the Petitioner surrenders and appears before the learned trial Court within three days of the receipt of a copy of this order and files an application for regular bail, the same shall be considered expeditiously by the learned trial Court and preferably within two weeks and till such consideration, the Petitioner shall be admitted to interim bail on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.

Nothing stated herein above 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 observation made in this order.