Mukand Singh vs Satpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh and ors.

H.S. Brar, J.

This order of mine will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 4742M of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab as well as Crl. Misc. No. 3451M of 1992 filed by Mukand Singh, petitioner under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. as in both of them a prayer for setting aside the order dated 21.1.1992 of Shri Darbara Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur allowing bail to Satpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh son of Harnek Singh resident of Village Namol, Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur has been made.

It has been alleged in the petition that Sat Pal Singh, respondent No. 1, is the main accused in this case. The case under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against Satpal Singh, Harnek Singh, Jora Singh and Kaka Singh in case F.I.R. No. 122 dated 5.10.1991, Police Station Longowal at the instance of Mukand Singh PW who stated on 4.10.1991 that at about 8 P.M. in the area of village he went to his fields where his brother Jit Singh was stated that he was wanted by Satpal Singh, Kaka Singh, Jora Singh etc. and his brother went towards Harnek Singh and he kept on sitting there. After about 1/2 hour Mukand Singh PW heard noise `mar ditta, mar ditta'' Then Harnek Singh and others went away. The occurrence was witnessed by PW Mohinder Singh who has stated that on 4.10.1991 at about 8.30 P.M. he was going towards his fields in order to find his combine. His fields adjoin the fields of Mukand Singh PW and when he was passing by the electric motor of Antar Singh then he heard noise `mar ditta, mar ditta'' from inside the motor of Antar Singh. He reached there where electric bulb was on and he saw Satpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh armed with Kulhari causing injuries on the head of Jit Singh whereas Harnek Singh catching hold of Jit Singh from his legs. Satpal Singh gave two blows with his Kulhari on the person of Jit Singh which hit on his face. He raised a raula `na maro, na maro'', then the accused ran away. During the investigation, extra judicial confession of the accused made before one Sat Guru was also recorded.

The learned counsel for the petitioner as well as counsel for the State have argued that Satpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh, respondent No. 1 is the main accused in this case. There is sufficient evidence on record, according to them, in the shape of extra judicial confession which was made by Satpal Singh before one Sat Guru and the statement of Mohinder Singh PW who had witnessed the occurrence and who had categorically stated in his statement, that he saw Harnek Singh accused catching hold of Jit Singh from his legs and Satpal Singh was giving Kulhari blows on the person of Jit Singh. Recovery of the weapon of the offence (bloodstained kulhari) at the instance of the accused has already been made and there were three injuries on the dead body of Jit Singh which has been attributed to Satpal Singh respondent No. 1. It is further argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State that it has been wrongly held by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing bail that there is delay in loding the F.I.R. and that the statement of Mohinder Singh was recorded at a belated stage although sufficient explanation has been found in the statement of Mohinder Singh PW.

It is further argued by them that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the strong motive behind the occurrence. The learned counsel, thus, have stated that bail granted to respondent No. 1, Satpal Singh by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur is liable to be cancelled, as granting of bail cannot be justified by the facts and evidence of the case and is result of improper exercise of the discretion by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which has caused miscarriage of justice. They have cited the following authorities in defence of their arguments :

(i)

The State of Maharashtra v. Anand Chintaman Dighe, 1991(3) Recent Criminal Reports 24 (SC) : 1991 (2) Crimes 529;

(ii) Bansilal Kala v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1991 (1) Crimes 540;

(iii) Major Singh v. Gurdev Singh and others, 1991 (3) R. Crl. R. 73; and

(iv) Pitambar Swain v. Ainthu @ Ashok Kumar Sahu, 1988 (3) Crimes 754.

Relevant portion of 1991 (2) Crimes 529 (supra) is reproduced as under :

"We do not appreciate the manner in which the learned Judge has dealt with the matter. The police investigation prima facie shows that mafiatype terror and fear psychosis was created which led to the coldblooded murder of Shridhar Khopkar. The learned Judge acted illegally in appreciating the statements of witnesses and material collected by the Investigating Officer at the investigation stage. He should have permitted the evidence to be recorded and thereafter dealt with the same in accordance with law."

On the other hand, the leaned counsel for the respondentSatpal Singh has stated that the discretion exercise by the learned Additional Sessions Judge while allowing bail to the respondent is not to be interfered lightly as according to him, there are no allegations that after the release of the respondent on bail he tampered with the prosecution evidence or otherwise contravened any of the conditions granting bail to him. He, thus, submits that bail allowed by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge to the respondent Satpal Singh is not liable to be cancelled under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. He has cited Amar Nath and others v. State of Haryana and others, A.I.R. 1967 Supreme Court 2185; Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 961 and Gurcharan Singh and others v. State (Delhi Administration), A.I.R. 1978 Supreme Court 179 to substantiate his argument.

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, State and respondent and have perused the police file. it is an admitted fact that a case under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code has been registered against the respondent, Satpal Singh. Mohinder Singh eyewitness has categorically stated that he has witnessed the occurrence and saw Harnek Singh accused catching hold of Jit Singh from his legs and Satpal Singh was giving Kulhari blows on the person of Jit Singh, deceased. Recovery of bloodstained kulhari was also made at the instance of the accused Satpal Singh and there is evidence of extra judicial confession of the accused Satpal Singh made to one Sat Guru. There is also motive for accused Satpal Singh to commit the crime. There were three injuries on the dead body of Jit Singh which have been attributed to respondent Satpal Singh.

In my considered view, the learned Additional Sessions Judge has acted illegally in appreciating the statements of witnesses and material collected by the Investigating Officer at the investigation stage. He should have permitted the evidence to be recorded and thereafter dealt with the same in accordance with law. At this state, the learned Additional Sessions Judge should not have ignored the evidence of eyewitness, extra judicial confession and recovery of bloodstained kulhari at the instance of accused. It was not proper exercise of jurisdiction by the leaned Additional Sessions Judge in granting bail to the respondent, Satpal Singh.

In view of my above discussion, I accept Crl. Misc. applications, set aside the order dated 21.1.1992 of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur and order cancellation of bail to Satpal Singh, respondent. He should surrender to the trial Court immediately.