Boota Singh vs State of Haryana

S.S. Saron, J.—Notice of motion.

On the asking of the Court, learned State counsel Mr. Pawan Singh, AAG, Haryana accepts notice. Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate for the complainant has also put in appearance.

The Investigating Officer SI Diwan Singh, Police Post Jiwan Nagar, Police Station Rania, District Sirsa along with the record is present in Court in the connected case i.e. C.R.M. No. M-27346 of 2010 filed by Gursharan Kaur wife of the present Petitioner Boota Singh.

Heard counsel for the parties.

The Petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 24.8.2010 for the offences under Sections 148, 323, 324, 307, 341, 506 and 149 IPC; besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.

The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Harmit Singh who is Ex-Chairman of the Block Samiti, Rania. It is alleged by the complainant that on 21.8.2010 at about 7.00 p.m., he was going on his motorcycle from the petrol pump Jiwan Nagar to his house. He stopped at bus stand Jiwan Nagar to meet somebody. At that time, a black colour Bolero vehicle came and Basant Singh son of the Petitioner Boota Singh, Raghbir Singh son of Ajmer Singh, Pinda @ Bhupinder Singh son of Gulzar Singh were present in it. They were standing at the back portion of the vehicle. They were accompanied by another unknown person whose face was muffled. The complainant alleges that he can recognize him on seeing him. Boota Singh (Petitioner) was sitting by the side of the driver. The Bolero vehicle crossed near the bus stand near Jiwan Nagar and went towards the road which goes towards their village Jiwan Nagar. After sometime, the complainant also started his motorcycle to go towards his village Jiwan Nagar. On the way he saw the same Bolero vehicle coming at a fast speed towards him. On reaching near the complainant, the vehicle stopped and the driver side door of the vehicle opened. The complainant applied brakes and stopped his motorcycle. The five persons got down from the vehicle and Boota Singh (Petitioner) fired from his revolver or pistol towards the complainant in order to murder him. The complainant at once ducked down and the bullet passed over his head. The Petitioner then raised a lakara and exhorted his companions to catch hold of the Chairman (complainant) and kill him. The complainant saw that Basant Singh son of the Petitioner Boota Singh had a ''kappa'' in his hand, Raghbir Singh was carrying a rod in his hand, Pinda @ Bhupinder was carrying a thick danda and the fifth unknown person had a hockey stick. All of them attacked the complainant and caused injuries to him with their respective weapons. Boota Singh (Petitioner) aimed his revolver towards the head of the complainant and tried to fire but the cartridge missed and did not fire. He gave a blow with a butt of his weapon on the back side of his left shoulder. Then all the accused person caused fist blows and kicked the complainant. Then the Petitioner Boota Singh said that he had been done away with. Thereafter the accused went away. By that time, Jaswinder Singh son of Darshan Singh came on his motorcycle and then all the assailants ran away from the spot.

Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has submitted that the Petitioner has been falsely implicated as his son Raghbir Singh is said to be involved in the incident of beating the complainant Harmit Singh. It is submitted that the complainant knew that the Petitioner has an arms licence. Therefore, he has made false allegations against the Petitioner which are to the effect that he fired twice from his weapon. He was able to duck one shot while the second cartridge missed and did not fire. It is submitted that no bullets were fired. The allegations are apparently false.

In response, learned State counsel and learned Counsel for the complainant have submitted that the complainant received serious injuries that were caused by the Petitioner along with his companions at the time of incident and he was referred to the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Sciences and Research, Chandigarh where he was admitted on 23.8.2010 and has been discharged on 23.9.2010. It is submitted that the Petitioner had a revolver with him at the time of incident which he fired; besides, the matter has been inquired into by two Deputy Superintendent of Police i.e. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) Sirsa and Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dabwali. Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Sirsa in his report dated 27.9.2010 after recording the statements of various persons and after conducting investigations, found the Petitioner to be an accused in the case. As per the investigations carried out by Sh. Babu Lal, HPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dabwali and as per his Zimni recorded on 1.9.2010, Boota Singh (Petitioner) is one of the accused in the case. Besides, as per the police record, it is submitted that Boota Singh (Petitioner) is having a licence bearing No. 753-(v)-SSA for one .315 bore rifle. Therefore, it is submitted that the custody of the Petitioner is required. It is also submitted that the plea of alibi set up by the Petitioner is not shown to be established on the basis of investigation so far conducted.

After giving my thoughtful consideration of the contentions of the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and going through the records, it may be noticed that the Petitioner is said to have fired at the complainant. The first shot that was fired by the Petitioner, missed the complainant as the complainant had ducked down. The second shot did not fire as the cartridge missed. According to the investigations conducted till now and also according to the reports of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Sirsa and that of Deputy Superintendent of Police, Dabwali it has been found that the Petitioner was present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident. Besides, as per the police record, the Petitioner Boota Singh is having a licence in respect of one .315 bore rifle and not that of revolver, which he is said to have been used at the time of the incident.

Keeping in view the nature of allegations and the role attributed to the Petitioner, no ground for pre-arrest bail is made out.

Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed.

It is however made clear that nothing observed herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the same are only for the purpose of disposal of the present petition.