Jagdip Singh vs State of Punjab

K. S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 61 dated 8.5.1999 has been registered at Police Station Payal under Sections 307, 506, 323, 324, 148 and 149 I.P.C. as also under Sections 25, 27, 54 and 159 of the Arms Act on the statement of Devinder Singh, wherein it has been alleged that on 8.5.1999 at about 8 a.m. when he went to the pond of Village Dhaki for feeding water and bathing his buffaloes, Sant Baba Darshan Singh of Dhaki Sahib in his car and some others behind him in a Gypsy came there. It has been alleged that Beant Singh and Chamkaur Singh were armed with a .12 bore gun, while Gurdev Singh, Balbir Singh, Manjit Singh and Sher Singh were carrying weapons. Baba Darshan Singh was carrying .12 bore gun and a pistol. Some of the others were armed with sticks, takuas and swords. The persons who came there were Lakhwir Singh son of Harnek Singh, Gurmit Singh, Lakhveer Singh son of Darshan Singh, Gurmukh Singh, Jaspal Singh, Jagjit Singh, Lakhwinder Singh, Manjit Singh, Charanjit Singh and Nihal Singh. There were 2025 others also.

Baba Darshan Singh fired from his .12 bore gun in the air and raised a lalkara to catch hold the villagers and teach them a lesson for bathing their buffaloes in the pond of Dhaki Sahib. Baba Darshan Singh fired towards the complainant and others from his .12 bore gun which hit complainants his left leg. Others sitting in the Gypsy also started firing in the air. Beant Singh fired from his gun which hit the right arm of Sadhu Singh. Jora Singh, Jit Singh and Sucha Singh received injuries. In the scuffle, members of Darshan Singh''s party also received minor injuries.

The petitioners herein and others applied for bail before the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, but their application was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. That is why the petitioners have approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that certain politicians are not well disposed towards Baba Darshan Singh who is doing good work, and so a distorted and false version of the occurrence has been projected without explaining the injuries including grievous injuries suffered by the accused party. Learned Counsel for the petitioners also contends that no overt act has been attributed to the petitioners in the F.I.R., but only in some of the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., attributions have been made against them.

Learned counsel for the petitioners further contends that from the statements annexed with the petition as P7A to P7F, it is seen that Ist petitionerJagdip Singh and 3rdpetitioner Bogar Singh are not even stated to have been armed or to have caused any injury to any person. He also contends that 2nd petitionerNihal Singh, 5th petitionerLakhwinder Singh. 6th petitionerGurmit Singh and 7th petitionerCharanjit Singh are alleged to have caused injuries to certain persons with blunt weapons. While 4th petitioner Lakhbir Singh is alleged to have given a lathi blow to Harbhajan Kaur causing dislocation in the middle finger of her right hand, 8th petitionerManjit Singh is alleged to have caused injuries to Harbans Kaur on her left elbow, left arm and left knee. He contends that the accused have given a representation to the Governor of Punjab about this false implication. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that this being a case of cross versions where the injuries on the complainant party have not been explained, the origin and genesis of the occurrence itself has been suppressed.

But the learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that 17 persons on the complainant side have been injured. He also contends that the accused party were armed with lathis, pistols, guns, takuas and kirpans. According to him, 3rd petitionerBogar Singh raised a lalkara and the Ist petitionerJagdip Singh injured Baldev Singh. While the 2nd petitionerNihal Singh caused injuries on the head and left arm of Bhagwan Singh. According to him, 4th petitionerLakhbir Singh son of Darshan Singh caused injuries to Malkeet Singh, while the 5th petitionerLakhwinder Singh caused in juries on the left arm, left wrist and back of shoulder. He also contends that 5th petitionerLakhwinder Singh caused injuries to Bhajan Singh on the back of his head, right shoulder and left arm. The learned counsel for the State also contends that 6th petitionerGurmit singh had caused injury on the right leg of Kesar Singh, while 7th petitionerCharanjit Singh had caused injury on the right side of the head and right knee of Karnail Kaur. According to him, the 8th petitionerManjit Singh had caused injuries on his arms, left leg and right flank of Harbans Kaur. He also contends that there was a fracture also. The learned counsel for the complainant also contends that 2nd petitioner Nihal Singh, 4th petitionLakhbir Singh, 6th petitionerGurmit Singh, 5th petitionerLakhwinder Singh and 8th petitionerManjit Singh are named in the F.I.R., while others have been named in the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C.

But taking into consideration the fact while the parties are giving cross versions and when it is not alleged that any of the petitioners herein had caused any injury which could be characterised as an attempt to commit murder, I am of the view that the petitioners herein are entitled to be released on bail.

In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Ludhiana.