Chamkaur Singh vs State of Punjab

Swatanter Kumar, J.

By this order I propose to deal with the application for bail filed by one Chamkaur Singh. A case under Sections 302/307/427/447/148/149/323/324/325 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 Arms Act was registered against eleven persons including the petitioner in F.I.R. No. 74 dated 13.11.1994.

The petitioner who is stated to be a student of 10+1 in Ripudaman Government College, Nabha, is alleged to have been falsely implicated in this case on account of party faction. The petitioner is stated to be in custody for the last more than 71/2 months. The challan has been filed but the trial has not as yet started. The learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that even as per FIR the accused party was already present in the field which is owned and possessed by them and it is the complainant party who wanted to disturb their possesin and they adopted illegal methods for the same and as such the complainant party was aggressor. According to the learned counsel there are cross cases i.e. a case under sections 307/427/448/148/149 Indian Penal Code and 25/54/59 of the Arms Act have been registered against the complainant party and they are also facing trial. Learned counsel submits that hardly any role has been attributed to Chamkaur Singh and the alleged role of giving ''soti'' blows on the back of the deceased, at the face of it, is not plausible. The deceased, as per the Medical Report, had hardly suffered any serious injury on the back and there was no fracture of the spine or such other serious injury. Thus counsel submits that even if the allegations in the First Information Reports are of any consequence in regard to the petitioner, the injury has been caused in self defence and as such the petitioner, in the light of the above submissions, be granted bail.

On the other hand the learned counsel for the State and Senior Advocate Mr. Ghai appealing for the complainant has submitted that the role of the petitioner is definite. He has, in fact, joined others to give ''soti'' blows even after the deceased had fallen on the ground and as such the accused are aggressor party and no protection is available to them.

I have heard the parties at some length.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has also brought to my notice that coaccused Pal Singh has been granted bail by the Additional Sessions Judge while Zora Singh and Kuldip Singh have been allowed bail by the High Court in Criminal Misc. No. 4887M of 1995 and Criminal Misc. No. 8551M of 1995 respectively. The role attributed to Zora Singh is identical to that of the present petitioner.

Which of the parties had been aggressor and which one of them exceeded their right of self defence and which party is actually guilty offender would have to be seen at the trial and can be commented only after the conclusion of the trial. At the time of decision of bail application the Court can no way travel into realm of evidence or probabilities which may ultimately be held to be correct or otherwise by the trial Court. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mohd. Ramzani v. State of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 1341 and State of Punjab v. Ajaib Singh, 1995(1) RecentCR 711 to argue that they have exceeded their right of self defence and as such are not entitled to the protection of law. The counsel has heavily relied upon Bijender v. State of Haryana, 1993 Criminal Law Times 427 to argue that wherever the cross cases are registered against parties and both the parties had been injured the petitioner would be entitled to bail.

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the fact that the coaccused with the identical role has already been released on bail by this Court, I find no reason to deny the same benefit to this petitioner. There is no doubt that other coaccused as mentioned in the FIR have been assigned definite role which may be termed upon trial as serious offences. The Court also cannot lose sight of the fact that the other accused in the FIR has been assigned a more serious role and who is stated to have inflicted serious injuries upon others including the deceased. They even have used fire arms but the present petitioner is stated to have been given ''soti'' blow and his role cannot be found to be different than that of Zora Singh coaccused who is already on bail. It is difficult to say at this stage whether the petitioner had exercised his right of self defence validly and within the four corners of law. At the same time, it can also be not said as a matter of principle of law that in every cross case the accused of either party would be entitled to bail. It will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case. Thus I am unable to agree with the contention of the counsel for the petitioner that the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for this proposition applies as a principle of law. What has weighed this court is the educational career of this petitioner who is stated to be a student of 11th Class and the fact that the entire family is behind the bars. The accused is a young person and has been in judicial custody for the last more than 71/2 months. The court must strike a balance between future aspects of the accused if he is continued in the company of hard criminals on one hand and his prospects of mending himself and becoming a good citizen by living in the society and pursuing his educational career, on the other hand. If he is found guilty ultimately he will have to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the Court.

In the circumstances stated above and without treating it as a precedent for other coaccused, it is directed that the petitioner be released on bail subject to his furnishing a bond in the sum of Rs. 25,000/ with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. The petitioner shall continue his studies and would not leave territorial jurisdiction of this Court without permission of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala. In the event, the petitioner does not continue his studies the prosecution will be entitled to move appropriate application for recalling this order.