Sukhwinder Singh @ Lala vs State of Punjab

Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.—Petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh @ Lala son of Tarsem Singh, has directed the instant petition for the grant of regular bail in a case registered against him along with his other co-accused, namely, Manbeer Singh @ Laddi, Manjit Singh @ Sonu, Wariam Singh and two other unknown persons, vide FIR No. 95 dated 25.10.2010, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 34 IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Ghanie Ke Bangar, District Gurdaspur, invoking the provisions of Section 439 Cr.P.C. Notice of the petition was 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 petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.

The prosecution claimed that on 25.10.2010, all the accused came to the spot armed with their respective weapons. Accused-Manjit Singh raised a ''lalkara'' and exhorted other accused to teach Shamsher Singh a lesson to register a case against him u/s 326 IPC. Thereafter, accused-Manjit Singh @ Sonu and Wariam Singh inflicted injuries from the reverse side of ''dattar'' on the backside of his head. Accused-Manjit Singh gave a baseball blow, which hit on the upper side of his right foot. It is not a matter of dispute that the allegations of the complainant with regard to other co-accused were found to be false and during the course of investigation, they were found innocent and were exonerated by the police. According to the prosecution, petitioner-Sukhwinder Singh @ Lala fired a single shot from his double barrel riffle, which hit on the left elbow of Hardeep Singh PW. All the injuries suffered by Hardeep Singh could be the result of single fire. He did not repeat the injury. In that eventuality, whether the provision of Section 307 IPC is attracted to the case of the petitioner or not, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial by the trial Court.

Be that as it may, the petitioner was arrested on 27.01.2012. Since then he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served in further detaining him in jail. Even, since not a single witness has yet been examined by the prosecution, so, the conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of other facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of trial, the instant petition for regular bail is hereby accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on regular bail on his furnishing adequate bail bonds and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the case during trial, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail.