Saudagar Singh vs State of Haryana and Another

Harmohinder Kaur Sandhu, J.—On 6-6-1992 case F.I.R. No. 121, under Sections 148, 149, 307 and 302, I.P.C, read with Section 25 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station, Chhainsa against Mohinder respondent and others for committing the murder of Lal Singh and Gurdev Singh. As per averments made in the first information report at the time of occurrence Mohinder and his co-accused Aidal, Bijender, Kamal and Jaggi were armed with guns. On the exhortation of co-accused Inami Aidal fired a shot from his gun which hit Lal Singh on his face. The second shot was fired by Mohinder which also hit Lal Singh on his face and neck. After his arrest in the case Mohinder applied for release on bail and Additional Sessions Judge, "Faridabad admitted him to bail vide his order dated 23-9-1992 Annexure P 1. Bail application filed by co-accused Aidal was, however, dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridabad, on 8-4-1993 as per order Annexure P. 2 wherein it was observed that co-accused Mohinder was granted bail on some mistaken appreciation of facts. The State of Haryana thereafter moved an application u/s 439(2) Cr. P. C, for cancellation of fail allowed to Mohinder which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad on 27-7-1993. The present petition has been filed by Saudagar Singh complainant for cancellation of bail of Mohinder respondent granted vide order Annexure P. 1. It was alleged that at the time of occurrence respondent No. 2 was armed with a gun and he fired a shot which hit Lai Singh on his face and neck. The part attributed to respondent No. 2 and his co-accused Aidal was almost on the same footing. The doctor who conducted post-mortem examination observed fire-arm injuries on the face, neck and skull of Lai Singh and in view of the grave offence committed by Mohinder he was wrongly allowed bail.

Notice of this petition was given to respondent No. 2 but no reply was filed on his behalf.

I have heard the counsel for the parties.

A perusal of the order Annexure P. 1 shows that the trial Court was of the view that Mohinder was not the principal offender and the shot fired by him did not cause death of Lai Singh. Similarly, when application for cancellation of bail was dealt it was observed that gun shot fired by Aidal had hit the deceased on his head while the gun shot fired by Mohinder caused only some pellet injuries on the face of the deceased and the doctor opined that death was due to the head injury. These observations made by the trial Court are not correct. A perusal of the F.I.R. as reproduced in the petition shows that both Aidal and Mohinder were armed with guns and they fired at Lai Singh. Both the shots hit Lai Singh on his face. So at the stage of granting bail no distinction could be made as to whose fire hit the skull of the deceased.

It was argued on behalf of respondent No. 2 that bail was allowed to the respondent in the month of September, 1992 and he had not misused the concession of bail in any manner nor there were any averments to that effect. He had been regularly appearing in the trial Court and he had never threatened the witnesses nor he tried to tamper with the evidence, so there was no ground for cancellation of bail. This contention of the learned counsel was repelled on the ground that the petitioner had not approached this Court for cancellation of bail granted to respondent No. 2 on the ground that he was in any way thwarting the course of justice but his contention was that the respondent had committed a grave offence by participating in the commission of an act whereby two persons were murdered. There were serious allegations against him and still he was allowed bail. The trial Court did not exercise its discretion properly.

After hearing the counsel for the parties, I am of the view that since there were specific allegations against Mohinder respondent that he caused a gun fire injury on the face of Lai Singh deceased and his co-accused was also attributed an injury of the similar nature so no distinction could be made in his case and concession of bail could not be allowed to him on the ground that it was the injury caused by the co-accused which proved fatal. The trial Court exercised its discretion wrongly. I, therefore, accept this petition and order cancellation of bail allowed to Mohinder respondent vide order dated 22-9-1992. He will surrender before the trial Court on 1-3-1994.