Love @ Lovepreet Singh vs State Of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of anticipatory bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No. 13 dated 14.1.2021 at Police Station Sadar Amritsar under Sections 307, 427, 148, 149 of Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act.

The FIR in question was lodged at the instance of Amarjit Singh @ Sonu, wherein it is alleged that on 13.1.2021, he had gone to visit his uncle Paramjit Singh on the occasion of 'Lohri' festival and his uncle lit a bonfire in the street in front of his house. At about 8:30 p.m. Jas, Loveporeet @ Love (petitioner) and Vikram were also standing in the street and were hurling abuses loudly. The complainant and his uncle objected to the same and upon which they went away from the street. It is alleged that at about 10/10:30 p.m. Lovepreet Singh @ Love, Jas, Vikram, Balwinder Singh and Manjinder Kaur wife of Balwinder Singh came there. Balwinder Singh raised a 'lalkara' exhorting his companions that Amarjit Singh @ Sonu be returned the "money alongwith interest". It is alleged that the complainant had earlier advanced an amount of `1 lakh as loan to Balwinder Singh on the asking of his uncle but he had not been returning back the same. It is alleged that Lovepreet Singh @ Love (petitioner) fired twice on the complainant from his pistol, which he was holding in his hand with an intention to kill him. Jas is also stated to have fired in the air. The shots hit complainant's arms. The other persons are alleged to have pelted stones. When the complainant and others raised alarm, Vikram, who was armed with 'datar', Balwinder Singh, who was carrying 'kirpan' ran away from the spot. Although efforts were being made for negotiating a compromise, but to no effect.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has falsely been implicated in the present case. It has been submitted that as per the FIR, it is the shots fired by Jas, which had allegedly hit the complainant and that since Jas has already been granted anticipatory bail by the Court of Sessions, the petitioner also deserves the same concession on grounds of parity. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the injuries as described in the MLR do not reflect that the same have been inflicted with the help of a firearm as there is no reference to any blackening of wounds.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has submitted that as per the FIR, the petitioner as well as Jas both were armed with pistols and they had fired and that although it does appear that the FIR has not been properly worded but infact it can be made out that while Jas had fired in the air, it is the shots fired by the petitioner, which had hit the complainant. Learned State counsel has also referred to injuries sustained by the complainant, which are reproduced herein under:

Sr. No.

Injuries

1.

A lacerated wound of size 1.1 cm X 07 cm present on ventral aspect of right forearm, placed 5.7 cm above the right wrist joint. Margins of the wound are irregular and inverted. Profuse bleeding is present. Depth not probed.

2

A lacerated wound of size 1.4 cm x 0.9 cm present on the dorsal aspect of right forearm, placed 6.4 cm above the right wrist joint. Margins of the wound are irregular and inverted. Profuse bleeding is present. Depth not probed.

3.

A lacerated wound of size 1.1 cm x 0.7 cm present on the ventral aspect of left forearm, placed 7.7 cm from the medial cubital fossa. Margins of the wound are irregular and inverted. Profuse bleeding is present. Depth not probed.

Learned State counsel has further submitted that a co-accused Jaspreet @ Jas has also suffered a disclosure statement indicating that the pistol used for commission of crime belongs to the present petitioner, who had fired at the complainant.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

It is a case where there are specific allegations to the effect that the petitioner Lovepreet Singh @ Love and Jas were carrying weapons and that they had fired. A perusal of the FIR would indicate that the allegations of firing at the complainant are specifically against the petitioner while co-accused Jas is stated to have fired in the air. The existence of injuries on the person of the complainant would substantiate the allegations levelled in the FIR. The injuries as shown in the MLR have apparently been caused with some firearm. The mere fact that blackening around the wound is not mentioned or that there was no blackening, cannot be interpreted to mean that the same have not been caused with a firearm as it is well accepted that blackening of wounds caused with fire-arms would be there only if fired from a very close range. Even if the injuries have not caused any damage to any bone and are classified as simple injuries, still it cannot be said that the said injuries would not attract the rigors of Section 307 IPC as the intention to commit murder has to be gathered from circumstances including the nature of weapon used, seat of injuries, type of injuries, number of injuries etc. A pistol is one of the most lethal weapons and petitioner had fired two shots at complainant. In these circumstances, it can safely be presumed that the injuries were caused in an attempt to cause death. The pistol is yet to be recovered. No special case is made out for grant of anticipatory bail. The petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.