Billu vs State of Punjab and Another

Rajan Gupta, J.—This is a petition u/s 438 Code of Criminal Procedure seeking prearrest bail in a case registered against the Petitioner under Sections 308, 323, 341, 336, 506, 148, 149 IPC and Section 307 IPC which was added in the charge sheet submitted u/s 173 Code of Criminal Procedure at Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, vide FIR No. 135 dated 19th June, 2009.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner was not even present at the spot at the time of occurrence. He has been falsely implicated by the police. The Petitioner has been involved due to political pressure and thus, he is entitled to concession of pre-arrest bail.

Learned State counsel, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He submitted that accused had prepared to cause serious injuries to the complainant Gurjant Singh as could result in his death. He further submitted that FIR was registered on 19th June, 2009 and Petitioner has evaded the process of law for a fairly long time, thereby causing delay in the conclusion of the investigation.

I have heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

The FIR was lodged on the statement of one Gurjant Singh, who alleged that on 19th June, 2009 he along with some other persons, was going in a car for some domestic purpose. At about 1.00 P.M. when they stopped the car in front of his shop, two cars came from behind and 7-8 persons alighted from the same. One of the accused raised a Lalkara that complainant was not to be spared today. Other accused including the Petitioner assaulted the complainant resulting in multiple injuries to him. The complainant was admitted in Civil Hospital, Bhawanigarh, from where he was referred to Rajindra Hospital, Patiala for treatment. After the investigation was set into motion, the Petitioner filed a petition for pre-arrest bail which was dismissed on 29th June, 2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur. It appears that the Petitioner filed a similar petition in this Court which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 28th July, 2009 (Annexure P-6). The Petitioner has been evading the process of law thereafter. He has now filed the instant petition seeking the same relief as in the earlier petition. The only change of circumstance pointed out, is a compromise arrived at between the parties. However, keeping in view entire facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that all the accused came together and assaulted the complainant, I am of the considered view that the Petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. In any case, FIR was registered way back on 19th June, 2009 and Petitioner has not submitted himself before the investigating agency so far. The prayer for pre-arrest bail is, thus, without any merit. The same is hereby declined. The petition is dismissed.