Kuldip Singh vs State of Punjab

Ram Chand Gupta, J.—The present petition filed u/s 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No. 45 dated 12.2.2009, under Sections 304-A and 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC, registered at Police Station Sadar, Ferozepur.

Briefly stated, death of Sukhchain Singh, father of present petitioner had taken place on 31.10.2008 and during proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. co-accused and brother of the present petitioner and another son of deceased had stated that he was going on his motor-cycle and that his father was going on different motor-cycle on 31.10.2008. At about 10.30 PM motor-cycle of his father got slipped, on account of which his father suffered injuries on his person and later on succumbed to the injuries. However, thereafter Gurdeep Singh, father of deceased i.e. grand-father of present petitioner-accused made a complaint to the police that the petitioner-accused alongwith his brother i.e. co-accused had killed their father Sukhchain Singh. On the said complaint, an inquiry was conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and he came to the conclusion that Sukhchain Singh died on account of hitting by some unknown vehicle and hence FIR u/s 304-A IPC was registered.

Another application was made by Kuldeep Singh, father of deceased, on the basis of which another inquiry was conducted by S.P(D), who submitted his report on 18.07.2009 and in the said inquiry report he had concluded that the present petitioner-accused alongwith his brother Baljit Singh, both sons of deceased Sukhchain Singh, had killed him and hence offence u/s 302 IPC was added.

A parallel complaint was also inquired by the crime branch on the instructions of Human Rights Commission and the Crime Branch submitted its report that offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC were made out against the present petitioner-accused and his brother.

As per post mortem report, as many as 15 injuries were found on the person of deceased and the cause of death was declared due to injuries on the vital parts of the body.

However, on the question as to whether the injuries were received in the accident and whether the injuries were homicidal, initial report of the doctor was that possibility of the injuries having been caused in the accident cannot be ruled out and however, the Medical Board, constituted later on, opined that the possibility of the injuries being homicidal, could not be absolutely ruled out.

It has been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that he and his brother have been falsely implicated in this case as there was no reason for them to have committed murder of their father. It is further contended that the present complaint has been lodged by the grand-father of the present petitioner in connivance with paternal uncle of the petitioner on account of land dispute as grand-father of petitioner used to reside with paternal uncle. It has also been contended that complainant-grand-father of the petitioner has also taken loan of Rs. 5,60,000/- from the Bank and the land of deceased was mortgaged with the bank and that hence, he was to return the said loan. It is further contended that three different versions were given by the grand-father of petitioner. It is further argued that when inquiry was conducted by the DSP, there was no need of getting another inquiry conducted by S.P(D). He has also placed reliance upon the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Criminal Misc. No. 12774-M of 2008 decided on 18.11.2008. It has also been contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that nothing is to be recovered from the petitioner.

The bail application has been vehemently opposed by learned Counsel for the State on the plea that it had come in the investigation that father of the petitioner used to maltreat mother of petitioner and hence that was the motive for the petitioner and his brother to have committed murder of their father. It is further contended that version taken by co-accused and brother of the petitioner after death of their father in proceedings u/s 174 Cr.P.C. was found false as injuries were not received by the deceased on account of fall from the motor-cycle. It is further contended that though two inquiries were held and however the second inquiry was conducted by senior Police Officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police and that a Board was also constituted to get the opinion regarding the fact as to whether the injuries are accidental or homicidal and that the Board has given the opinion that injuries could be homicidal as well. It is further contended that circumstantial evidence has been collected during the investigation against the petitioner-accused and the co-accused, and that deceased was seen with them by two witnesses before his death and that deceased was on the motor-cycle, which was also occupied by both the accused and he was seen in between them and that right leg of the deceased was seen being dragged. It is further contended that the petitioner is absconding and proceedings for declaring him proclaimed offender have already been initiated and warrants have already been issued. It is further contended that allegation against the petitioner-accused are serious in nature and that his custodial interrogation is necessary. It is also contended that Jaspreet Kaur''s case (supra) is of no help to the petitioner as the present case is based on different facts and that in view of initial stand taken by the co-accused and the present petitioner regarding cause of death of their father subsequent inquiries were necessitated.

I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.

The allegations against the petitioner-accused are serious in nature. As many as 15 injuries were found on the person of deceased and the medical board does not rule out the injuries being homicidal. The deceased was seen with the petitioner-accused and co-accused on motorcycle before his death by two witnesses and the right leg of the deceased was being dragged. Hence, in view of these facts, custodial interrogation of the petitioner-accused is necessary.

Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am of the view that it is not a fit case, in which extra-ordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. The petition for anticipatory bail moved by petitioner-accused Kuldip Singh is dismissed.

The present petition stands disposed of accordingly.