Gurdev Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical questions of law and facts are involved in the aforesaid petitions for anticipatory bail, arising out of

the same FIR/case, therefore, I propose to dispose of the same, vide this common order in order to avoid the repetition of the facts. However, for

facilitation, the facts have been extracted from CRM No. M-26599 of 2010.

The matrix of the facts, which need a necessary mention for deciding the limited core question in these petitions and emanating from the record,

is that on 12.8.2010 at about 3 P.M. Sucha Singh complainant was present in his house and his wife Manjit Kaur was washing the clothes. In the

meantime, his son-in-law Gurdev Singh also reached there. She informed them that Petitioner-accused Harjinder Singh alias Jinda son of Surinder

Singh had started tilling the Millet (Chari) crop sown in their fields with his tractor. Thereafter, she went to the fields to stop him. Bawa Singh,

father of the complainant and their son-in-law Gurdev Singh also followed her. According to the prosecution that accused Bir Kaur wife of

Paramjit Singh, Kashmir Kaur wife of Harbhajan Singh and Rajwant Kaur wife of Harjinder Singh were already present there. PW Manjit Kaur

asked Harjinder Singh to take out his tractor from their fields. Then, he stopped his tractor and took out a Kirpan. He raised a lalkara that they

(complainant party) be taught a lesson for stopping the tractor. Thereafter, the above three ladies caught Manjit Kaur from her hair and had fallen

her on the ground. In the meantime, accused Harjinder Singh attacked Manjit Kaur with the reverse side of Kirpan, which hit on her right elbow.

Thereafter, accused Gurdev Singh, Paramjit Singh and Maninder Singh armed with Kirpans, Surender Singh and Harbhajan Singh armed with

Datars, Jitender Sngh alias Jota armed with Kirch and Bau Deol son of Balwinder Singh armed with iron rod came there and raised lalkaras to

teach them a lesson for purchasing the land.

Levelling a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in all, the prosecution claimed that all the accused attacked and caused

injuries to the complainant party with their deadly respective weapons. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of the

complainant, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No. 122 dated 14.8.2010 on accusation of having committed the

offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325, 326, 427 and 447 read with Section 149 IPC by the police of Police Station Sadar

Pathankot, Distt. Gurdaspur.

Having exercised their right of anticipatory bail and lost in the Court of Session, Petitioner Gurdev Singh (in CRM No. M-26599 of 2010),

Harjinder Singh, Surinder Singh and Rajwant Kaur (in CRM No. M-26792 of 2010), have applied for the grant of anticipatory bail to them, in the

present case, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Code of Criminal Procedure.

Notice of the petitions was issued to the State.

Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the

entire matter, to my mind, Petitioners Gurdev Singh, Harjinder Singh and Surinder Singh are not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the

obtaining circumstances of the case.

As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against Petitioners Harjinder Singh, Surinder Singh and Gurdev Singh that they

came to the place of occurrence with their deadly respective weapons and caused injuries to the complainant party. Moreover, the learned State

counsel, on instructions from SI Satish Chander, has stated that Petitioner Gurdev Singh caused grievous injury with the Kirpan, which was subject

matter of offence punishable u/s 326 IPC. As Kirpans and Datar are yet to be recovered from Petitioners Harjinder Singh, Surinder Singh and

Gurdev Singh, therefore, to me, their custodial interrogation is required at this stage.

Above all, it is now well settled principle of law that anticipatory bail should not be granted lightly and in a routine manner. Ultimately, it may

seriously affect the process of investigation. An order of anticipatory bail should not be made to create an in-road to the statutory investigational

power of the police. In my view, if Harjinder Singh, Surinder Singh and Gurdev Singh-Petitioners are allowed anticipatory bail, it is likely to

occasion interference in the investigational power of the police, which is not legally permissible.

Now, adverting to the case of Petitioner Rajwant Kaur in this respect, what is not disputed here is that according to the version of the

prosecution that she alongwith other ladies accused caught hold Manjit Kaur PW from her hair and no role or specific injury is attributed to her in

the FIR, but subsequently, the prosecution claimed that she caused simple injury to Manjit Kaur PW. Therefore, her case is entirely distinguished

from the case of her other co-accused. Otherwise also, she is a lady and wife of main accused Harjinder Singh. So, false implication and addition

of lady as an accused cannot possibly be ruled out at this stage. To my mind, she is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail.

In the light of the aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of the facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as

discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the

trial of the case, petitions for anticipatory bail filed by Gurdev Singh, Harjinder and Surinder Singh are dismissed.

At the same time, it is directed that in the event of arrest of Petitioner Rajwant Kaur, she shall be released on anticipatory bail on her furnishing

bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer, subject to the conditions that (i) she shall make herself

available for interrogation by the Investigating Agency as and when required; (ii) she shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or

promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer

and (iii) she will not leave India without prior permission of the trial Court.

Needless to state that in case, Petitioner Rajwant Kaur does not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to

move an application for cancellation of her bail, in this relevant connection.