Sukhdev Singh alias Fauji vs State of Punjab

K.S. Kumaran, J.

F.I.R. No. 120 dated 17.11.1998 has been registered at Police Station Munak under Sections 302, 148, 149 and 120 I.P.C. on the statement of Chet Singh.

According to the complainant, his maternal uncle Bhag Singh was living with him for the last about three years in view of certain disputes in his village. On the morning of 16.11.1998 Bhag Singh had gone to Munak but had not returned. On 17.11.1998, the complainant on coming to know that a person was hanging from a kikar tree, went and found that it was Bhag Singh who was hanging from a tree with injuries in his stomach and buttock and blood was oozing from his forehead and the mouth.

Four years ago, Bhag Singh and murdered Kewal Singh son of Darshan Singh in respect of which the case is pending against Bhag Singh and others. Bhag Singh had come on bail. Therefore, the complainant doubted that Bhag Singh might have been murdered by Darshan Singh, Nachhatar Singh, Labh Singh and Gurdial Singh.

The petitioners had approached the Sessions Court, Sangrur, for bail, but, learned Additional Sessions Judge, has dismissed their application. Therefore, they have approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail.

I have heard the counsel for both the sides and perused the records on file.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are not named in the F.I.R. and that this is a case of a blind murder. He also contends that even the complainant doubted some others, but not the petitioner, but the learned counsel for the State points out that Naib Singh son of Bhag Singh (deceased) had made statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 18.11.1988 (i.e. two days after lodging of the F.I.R.) that he had seen the accused strangulating a person, whose face he did not see, and he subsequently turned out to be his father. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that it is wholly unacceptable and, therefore, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that the petitioners had filed earlier Crl. Misc. No. 8410M of 1999 for bail but the same was dismissed since the counsel for the State represented that all the witnesses had been examined and that the case would be completed on the next date and it is on this representation Crl. Misc. No. 8410M of 1999 was disposed of but, in fact no witness has been examined at all by the prosecution. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners have been in custody since 28.11.1998, and that since the case has been adjourned without examining a single witness out of the total number of 22 witnesses, the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners, but, at the same time without meaning to express any opinion on the merits of the main case. I am of the view that the petitioners are entitled to be released on bail.

Petition is allowed.

Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing sufficient surety to the satisfaction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur.