Kirpal Singh alias Dyal Singh vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 14 dated 9.2.1999 has been registered at Police Station Kartarpur, under Sections 302, 324, 323, 34 I.P.C. on the statement of Sukhwinder Singh, wherein the following material allegations are found :

On 9.2.1999 complaintSukhwinder Singh along with his father Jai Singh, brother Malkiat Singh, Surinder Singh and Manjit Singh who had come from Dubai, were working in their shops. At about 12 p.m. Jaipal Singh alias Laddi armed with a kirpan, Bhupinder Singh armed with Kirch, Paramjit Singh armed with a datar, Dial Singh (petitionerherein) armed with a dang came, and while Bhupinder Singh gave a kirch blow to Amarjit Singh (deceased), Paramjit Singh gave a datar blow hitting Jai Singh on the left shoulder. Jaspal Singh gave a kirpan blow to Malkiat Singh below his left eye. Dial Singh gave a dange blows to Surinder Singh, Malkiat Singh and Jai Singh. Amarjit Singh died in the hospital. The petitioner approached the Sessions Court, Jalandhar, for bail but his application was dismissed. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail.

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

The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that coaccused Jaspal Singh had sustainted three incised wounds which have not been explained, and that Jai Singh who was allegedly attacked by the petitioner had sustained two incised wounds only meaning thereby that there was no injury caused by dang on Jai Singh. He further contends that Surinder Singh, the other person who was allegedly attacked by the petitioner had sustained a scratch and two abrasions who could not have been caused with a dang. According to the learned counsel for the petitionerMalkiat Singh, the third person who had allegedly sustained injuries at the hands of the petitioner had an incised wound apart from a swelling on his body, and had also complained of pain in the right leg. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that these injuries could not have been caused by a dang. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, all the injuries were found to be simple, that this is a case of sudden fight where there was no previous enmity between the parties, and it is yet to be determined as to who is the aggressor. Learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, contends that this being a case of cross versions and the coaccused Paramjit Singh against who similar allegations have been made having been released on bail by this Court, the petitioner is also entitled to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contends that in the supplementary statement recorded on 10.2.1999 i.e. the day next after the date of F.I.R. it has been stated that the petitionerhereinafter had given kick blows to the deceased, and that the earlier petition filed by the petitioner in this Court has been dismissed by this Court because of this attribution made to the petitioner.

But the learned counsel for the petitioner contends that Paramjit Singh who had also allegedly caused simple injury to Jai Singh had moved an application for bail before this Court and as against him also a similar supplementary statement was put forward stating that Paramjit Singh had given kick blows to the deceased but, yet this Court had granted him bail. A copy of this order has also been produced which shows that the learned Counsel for the State was not able to point out as to where the blow or blows landed on the deceased. In those circumstances, Paramjit Singh has been ordered to be released on bail.

The question now is whether even though earlier application filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by this Court, the petitioner could be released on bail taking into consideration the order passed by this Court granting bail to a coaccused against whom also similar allegations have been made.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Vishnu Ram Chandra Maheshwari v. State of M.P., 1999(3) All India Criminal Law Reporter 645 had the occasion to consider this point and that Court relied upon the decision in Shobha Ram v. State of U.P., 1992 Criminal Law Journal 1371, wherein it was held as follows :

"Where an application for bail filed by accusedapplicant and a coaccused is rejected by High Court, and subsequently the coaccused has been granted bail on second application, the accused is also entitled to be granted bail on his second application on ground of parity. The claim of parity should not be denied merely because the other coaccused, who was granted bail, did not inform the Court about the rejection of bail application of other coaccused by different Benches."

That Court also relied upon another decision in Nanha v. State of U.P., 1993 Criminal Law Journal 938 wherein it was held as follows :

"If on examination of a given case, it transpires that the case of the applicant seeking bail is identical, similar to the accused, who has been bailed out, then the desirability of consistency will require that the applicant should also be released on bail."

Relying upon these decisions, the Madhya Pradesh High Court granted bail to the applicant (whose bail application had been earlier rejected) on the ground of parity.

This decision supports the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the ground of parity, the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail. There are no other grounds for declining the relief to the petitioner. In these circumstances, without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that the petitioner is entitled to be released on bail.

The petition is allowed and the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of C.J.M., Jalandhar.