Puran Singh vs State of Haryana

Rajan Gupta, J

This is a petition u/s 439 Cr.P.C. seeking regular bail in a case registered against the petitioner under Sections 307, 323 read with Section 34 IPC and 25 of the Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Sirsa, District Sirsa, vide FIR No.84 dated 3rd May, 2011.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner has been in custody for sufficiently long time. He has been falsely implicated due to previous enmity between the parties. Thus, he deserves concession of bail.

Learned State counsel has, however, vehemently opposed the prayer. He has submitted that petitioner has committed a heinous crime. Due to injuries caused by him, left arm of Bhagwan Dass, brother of the complainant had to be amputated. He has also referred to the opinion of the doctor dated 21st November, 2011 and contends that petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail pending trial.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and given careful thought to the facts of the case.

FIR was lodged by Madan Lal. He alleged that on 2nd May, 2011, he and his brother were assaulted by Puran Singh (petitioner) and his sons. Puran Singh fired with a double barrel gun. The pellet hit left arm of his brother Bhagwan Dass. Balwant Singh also tried to fire but his pistol did not work. Jaswant Singh gave blows on the head of Usha wife of his son Prem Kumar. Bhagwan Dass was referred to government hospital, Sirsa where he underwent treatment. His left arm below elbow had to be amputated. The doctor opined as follows:

Patient Bhagwan Dass had firearm injury in left upper limb. His brachial artery was badly ruptured due to firearm injury. Patient came with perfused bleeding from that vessel. He had also comminuted fracture of radius and ulna (forearm bones), hence amputation was done.

It is, thus, evident from above that a serious injury was caused in the occurrence leading to amputation of left upper arm below the elbow. Keeping in view the gravity of offence, the manner in which crime has been committed and the injury suffered by injured Bhagwan Dass, I am of the considered view that petitioner is not entitled to concession of bail. The petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed.