Manjit Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner Manjit Singh son of Natha Ram, has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of anticipatory bail, in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, vide FIR No. 23 dated 15.3.2014 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148,323, 324 and 506 read with section 149 IPC (the offences punishable u/ss. 325 and 326 IPC were added later on) by the police of Police Station Lambra, Distt. Jalandhar.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, going through the record with his valuable help and considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the present petition in this context.

Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case so, he is entitled to the concession of pre-arrest bail, sans merit.

Precisely, the prosecution, inter-alia, claimed that petitioner and his other co-accused have formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and attacked the complainant party. The petitioner, who is main accused, has caused injury with sword (kirpan), which landed on the middle of head of complainant Kulwinder Singh S/o. Baldev Singh complainant (for brevity "the complainant"). Thereafter, accused Daulat Ram gave baseball blow, which hit on the right side of the head of complainant, Accused Amritpal Singh gave a kirpan blow on his right arm below the arm pit. Subsequently, accused Jagdip Singh gave a wooden log blow, which hit on his left knee. According to prosecution that thereupon, when his brother Davinder Singh intervened him to rescue, all the accused gave beatings to him as well. The injury, caused by the petitioner with kirpan on the head of the complainant, was reported to be grievous in nature caused with sharp edged weapon, falling u/s. 326 IPC.

As indicated here-in-above, very serious and direct allegations of pointed offences are assigned that the petitioner and his other co-accused have formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, caused grievous injuries to the members of complainant party in the manner depicted here-in-above. Specific role of having caused grievous head injury with the sword (kirpan) on the head of the complainant is attributed to the petitioner. Therefore, considering the seriousness and grave allegations against the petitioner, to me, his custodial interrogation is necessary to recover the case property. In case, he is allowed the concession of pre-arrest bail, then, the police will be deprived to recover the sword (weapon of offence) and effective investigation. It would naturally adversely affect & weaken the case of the prosecution, which, to my mind, is not legally permissible. Thus, the petitioner is not at all entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

Moreover, it is now well settled principle of law that the order of anticipatory bail cannot be allowed to circumvent normal procedure of arrest and investigation by the police. The Court has also to see that the investigation is in the province of the police and an order of anticipatory bail should not operate as an in-road into the statutory investigational powers of the police, in exercising the judicial discretion in granting the anticipatory bail. Sequelly, the Court should not be unmindful of the difficulties likely to be faced by the investigating agency and the public interest likely to be affected thereby.

In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the seriousness of allegations of indicated offences against him and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial of main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for pre-arrest bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, on merits of the main case, in any manner, during the trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for anticipatory bail only.