Puran Singh vs State Of Punjab

Gurvinder Singh Gill, J

The petitioner has approached this Court seeking grant of regular bail in respect of a case registered vide FIR No.78 dated 16.5.2020 at Police Station City South Moga, District Moga under Sections 325, 323, 506, 148 and 149 of Indian Penal Code, wherein offences under Sections 307 and 308 of IPC were added later on.

The FIR was lodged at the instance of Jagdev Singh, wherein it is alleged that on 13.5.2020, his uncle Surjan Singh alongwith Shinder Singh, Ram Singh, Ram Singh, Puran Singh, Lachhman Singh, Gurpreet Singh, Gurdeep Singh and Jit Singh, who were armed with weapons, came in their pick-up vehicle bearing registration No.PB-29H-8953 at about 6:00 A.M. and challenged them that they were going to the fields at Mangewala and that in case they dared to obstruct them, they may come but they kept quite. It is alleged that later in the noon at about 12:00 P.M., when the complainant alongwith his brother Krishan Singh and his son Balvir Singh, were sitting under a 'neem' tree, his nephew Mahavir Singh had come from his work. In the meantime, the accused came in their vehicle and entered the house of Surjan Singh and shortly thereafter came out alongwith Jarnail Kaur, Veerpal Kaur, Shinder Singh, Kakka Kaur, Jassi, Mangu, Veerpal Kaur w/o Mangu Singh and picked up the weapons lying in the vehilce of Mangu Singh. It is alleged that they all attacked the complainant and his brother Krishan Singh. The petitioner is alleged to have given a blow with 'kulhari' from its reverse side to Krishan Singh. Gurpreet Singh is also alleged to have give a blow with 'kirpan' from its reverse side to Krishan Singh, which hit on his left elbow. Jarnail Kaur and Veerpal Kaur caught complainant's father Chotu Singh and threw him down and Mangu gave a blow with 'kirpan' on the middle of his head from its reverse side. Veerpal Kaur also gave a blow with 'daang' on the finger of left hand of Chotu Singh. Jarnail Kaur also gave a blow with 'daang' on the thumb of Chotu Singh's left hand. When the complainant came forward to rescue his father then Jit Singh gave a blow from 'kulhari' from its reverse side on the right side of complainant's head. When the complainant's elder brother Balvir Singh came forward to save them, then Surjan Singh gave a 'taqua' blow from its reverse side on Balvir Singh's head. When complainant's nephew Prabhjot Singh came forward to rescue them, then Ram Singh gave a blow with 'gandasi' from its reverse side of his head. When the complainant and others raised alarm, they retraced back but when they came to know about the arrival of complainant's nephew Mahavir Singh, they entered the house of the complainant and caught Mahavir Singh and threw him down and Shinder Singh gave a blow with 'gandasi' from its reverse side on his head. Lachhman Singh gave a blow with 'kirpan' from its reverse side on the left elbow of Mahavir Singh. Gurdeep Singh also gave a blow with 'gandasi' from its reverse side on his back. Gurpreet Singh, Puran Singh and Lachhman Singh pulled him outside and gave beatings to him and thereafter all of them ran away.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that it is a case where three persons from the side of accused have also been injured including the petitioner himself and that one of the injury sustained by petitioner has been declared as a 'grievous injury' and that the other injury was caused on the petitioner's head.

Opposing the petition, learned State counsel has not disputed the existence of two injuries on the person of petitioner i.e. one on his head and other on his left hand and that the injury on the left hand has been declared as a 'grievous injury'. Learned State counsel has, however, informed that a cross-version at the instance of the petitioner has been recorded and that the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last more than 7 months.

I have considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.

It is no doubt correct that the petitioner is not only named in the FIR but specific injuries have also been attributed to him. However, at the same time it is also borne out from the medical evidence placed on record that the petitioner himself has also sustained injuries. It will be debatable as to whether the injuries sustained by the petitioner were sustained on account of the private defence from the other party or as to whether it is the petitioner's party, which is the aggressor. In any case, since the petitioner as on date has been behind bars since the last more than 7 months, further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of learned Trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.