Ninder Singh @ Harjinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—As identical points to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioners are involved, therefore, I propose to dispose of indicated criminal petitions bearing CRM No. M-13835 of 2014 titled Ninder Singh @ Harjinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab (for brevity "the 1st case") and CRM No. M-15172 of 2014 titled Ranjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab (in short "2nd case), arising out of the same case/FIR, by means of this common order, to avoid the repetition of facts.

Petitioners, have preferred the instant separate petitions for the grant of anticipatory bail, in a cross-case registered against them, vide FIR No. 28 dated 18.03.2014, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable u/s 324 read with Section 34 IPC (the offence punishable u/s 307 IPC was added later on), by the police of Police Station Nahianwala, District Bathinda.

Notices of the petitions were issued to the State.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the present petitions for anticipatory bail deserve to be accepted in this context.

During the course of preliminary hearing, the following order was passed by this Court on April 24, 2014, in 1st case:-

Learned counsel, inter alia, contended that neither any specific role nor any particular injury is attributed to the petitioner. The only allegation assigned to him is that he hurled abuses to PW Mewa Singh son of Chhotu Singh. The argument is that initially, the case was registered against the accused, for the commission of offences punishable, u/s 324 read with Section 34 IPC but subsequently, an offence punishable u/s 307 IPC was added, in order to enhance the gravity of offence and to wreak vengeance, vide DDR No. 25 dated 01.04.2014. The argument further proceeds that it is a case of version and cross-version, in which, Ranjit Singh (brother of the petitioner) has also sustained grievous injury and the cross criminal case was registered against the complainant party, under Sections 326, 324 etc. read with Section 34 IPC.

Heard.

Notice of motion be issued to the respondent, returnable for 13.05.2014.

Meanwhile, the petitioner is directed to join the investigation before the next date of hearing. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction.

At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioners has placed on record the copies of affidavit of petitioner (Annexure A-1), Joint statement (Annexure A-2), affidavit of Jaspal Singh (Annexure A-3), affidavit of Kaur Singh (Annexure A-4), which would reveal that the petitioners have already joined the investigation. It is not a matter of dispute that, initially the present case was registered against the petitioners for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 324 and 34 IPC. They were arrested, interrogated and were granted the bail. The offence punishable u/s 307 IPC was added later on, vide DDR No. 25 dated 01.04.2014. Moreover, it is a case of version and cross-version, in which, petitioner Ranjit Singh has also sustained three injuries including one grievous injury at the hands of complainant party. In that eventuality, which of the party was the aggressor, inter alia, would be the moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court. There is no history of previous involvement of the petitioners in any other criminal case. Even, since the prosecution has not yet submitted the final police report (challan) against the accused, so, the final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time.

In the light of aforesaid reasons and taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above, the instant petitions for anticipatory bail are accepted. The interim bail already granted to petitioner Ninder Singh @ Harjinder Singh, by virtue of order dated April 24, 2014 (in 1st case) is hereby made absolute. However, petitioner Ranjit Singh (in 2nd case) is directed to join the investigation as and when required to do so by the investigating agency. In the event of his arrest, the Arresting Officer would admit him to bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds in the sum of Rs. 25,000/- to his satisfaction, subject to the compliance of the conditions, as contemplated u/s 438(2) Cr.P.C.

Needless to mention that, in case, the petitioners do not cooperate or join the investigation, the prosecution would be at liberty to move a petition for cancellation of their bail, in this respect.