Mohinder Singh vs Sukhjinder Singh alias Mintu and ors.

A. S. Nehra, J.

Mohinder Singh has filed this application under section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancelling the bail granted to respondents No. 1to 4.

On the statement of Mohinder Singh, a case under sections 302/34 and 120B/404, India Penal Code, and under section 25 of the Arms Act was registered vide FIR No. 37 dated 2441990, in Police, Selina, The statement of Mohinder Singh recorded in the aforesaid FIR, reads as under :

We are six brothers and do agriculture. My Brother Balbir Dass has built a kotha towards the lower field. Today and my brother Balbir Dass took the scooter of Charanjit Dass Sadh and were proceeding towards the fields of Balbir Dass. When we were passing through the cancal bride near Bus Stand, Selina, then at the bus stand, Sukhjinder Singh alias Mintu, son of Kishan Singh Dass Sadh, Pall Dass son of Babu Sadh, residents of Sehna, Babu Singh son of Baisakha Singh Jat, and Naginder Singh son of Sohan Singh, Mistri resident of Sehna, were standing there. On seeing us, they raised Lalkara towards us, but we passed them and reached the house of Balbir Dass at his fields and after staying there for a while, we came back to village Selina on the same scooter through the path of the canal. When at about 1200, noon we reached near the fields of Kirpal Singh, then, from the Selina side, near the site of canal, accused Sukhjinder Singh alias Mintu son of Kishan Dass and Pal Dass son of Babu Ram, resident of Selina were coming. The scooter was being driven by my brother Balbir Dass. Sukhinder Singh and Pal Dass signalled us to stop and my brother Balbir Dass stopped the scooter and I got down from the scooter in the meanwhile, Sukhinder Singh fired at the right side of the forehead of my brother Balbir Dass and simultaneously Pal Dass fired a shot from his revolver in the stomach of my brother. I kept on saying na maro, na maro". On my making raula, Sukhinder Singh and Pal Dass fired 56 shots from their respective weapons to my brother Balbir Dass. My brother fell down from the scooter and died at the spot, Pal Dass, after taking Sukhinder Singh on our scooter, ran towards Balowal Canal. At a short distance, my nephew Jagtar Singh and Darshan Singh son of Mema Singh, Jat, residents of Selina, were coming, who witnessed the whole scene. They also raised a hue and cry. At the spot my nephew Jagtar Dass and Darshan Singh looked after the dead body of my brother and I went to lodge a report to the police station. The cause of grudge is the Panchayat land, measuring about 4 1/2 Killas in the village. My brother Sandhu Dass and Baldev Dass remained in possession of the said land for the last 10 years on rent. The cultivation of the said land is being done by four brothers jointly. This year, i.e. 199091, the auction of the said land has been given to Sukhjinder Singh alias Mintu. The accused were having apprehension that they shall not leave, the possession of the said land. My brother Balbir Dass was the head of our family. Therefore, accused Sukhjinder Singh alias Mintu and Pal Dass abovementioned accused, in connivance with a common intention, hatched a conspiracy with Narinder Singh son of Sohan Singh Mistri and Babu Singh son of Wasakha Singh, and murdered my brother Balbir Dass. Action be taken according to law.

Sd/

Mohinder Singh

2441990.

The petitioner has alleged that immediately after their release, respondents No. 1 and 2 started threatening and openly challenged the petitioner and the other eyewitnessess, particularly Sewa Singh whose evidence was yet to be recorded by the Trial Court. On 971992, respondents Nos. 1 to 4 again threatened the petitioner and Sewa Singh and openly challenged Sewa Singh, in the presence of Bir Singh and Jit Singh, residents of the village, that in case he appeared in the Court as a witness, then he will be eliminated like the deceased. The matter was reported to the police but the police instead of initiating action regarding the cancellation of the bail, only initiated proceedings under sections 107/151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure against respondents Nos. 1 and 2. A copy of the order 10.7.1992 passed by the Executive Magistrate in the case of Sukhjinder Singh alias Mintu son of Krishan Singh and Pal Dass son of Sandhu Ram is attached with the application as Annexure P2.

Notice of this application was given to respondents Nos. 1 to 4 who submitted a detailed reply and denied the allegations levelled by the petitioner. Alongwith the reply, affidavits of Babu Singh, Naginder Singh. Sukhinder Singh son of Kishan Dass (respondent No. 1) and Pal Dass son of Babu Ram (respondent No. 2) have been filed.

The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Sessions Judge has erred in law in granting the bail to Sukhjinder Singh alias Mintu and Pal Dass. Sukhinder Singh was armed with a Pistol whereas Pal Dass was armed with a revolver and both of them had fired on the deceased. The petitioner and another independent, witness have fully supported the prosecution case and the medical evidence was also in total conformity with the ocular version of the petitioner, but, in spite of that, the learned trial Court granted bail to respondents No. 1 and 2 by passing a sketchy order on 7.7.1992. In support of his argument, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Mukand Singh v. Satpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh and another, 1992(2) Recent Criminal Reports 330 : 1992(2) All India Criminal Reporter 717 and Tej Ram v. Suresh and another, 1992(2) All India Criminal Law Report 191.

The petitioner and another independent witness have fully supported the prosecution case and the medical evidence was also in confirmity with the ocular version of the petitioner. Therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in law in granting the bail to Sukhinder Singh alias Mintu and Pal Dass. The application filed by Mohinder Singh petitioner is allowed and the bail granted to Sukhjinder Singh alias Mintu and Pal Dass, respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, is hereby cancelled. Nonbailable warrants be issued for their arrest and they be sent to the judicial lockup to stand trial along with their coaccused.

The observations made in this order shall not be considered an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.