Tarlok Singh vs State of Punjab

Uaggar Singh, J.—This occurrence took place while Smt. Raj wife of Harish Chand of Ludhiana was coming on a newly purchased scooter and when it was driven by her husband''s sister''s son Rakesh. The delivery of this scooter was taken from Jalandhar and they started for Ludhiana on the scooter at about noon time. After crossing Chaheru bridge, they saw two young men on a scooter of light blue colour behind their scooter. Those two persons stopped their scooter and fired a shot hitting Rakesh on his left flank. Rakesh fell down, and both those cleanshaven persons retraced their steps. The description of these two persons is stated to be that they were of the age of 22/23 years. One of them had a fair complexion and the other was of the wheatish complexion, wearing pants and shirts. The matter was reported and First Information Report was registered at 2.15 P.M, on the basis of statement of Sint. Raj recorded in the Civil Hospital, Phagawara at 145 P.M.

The petitioner was arrested on 841987. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner made an extrajudicial confession before Major Singh PW and it was only on the basis of the statement of Major Singh that particulars of the petitioner were made known for being involved in the present case. I have looked into the police file which falsifies the whole argument. The petitioner was arrested by Inspector/SHo City Phagwara, in some other connection on 8.4.1987. I asked the counsel for the State to give some information as to how the investigator arrested the petitioner in the present case. The only answer was that he had made an extra judicial confession.

Before the learned Sessions Judge who is also working as a Designated Court, Kapurthala, it was represented or behalf of the State that the investigation revealed about the petitioner being one of the culprits in this case and during the course of investigation, the petitioner got recovered the scooter. The version now put forth that Guman Singh PW happened to see the occurrence itself on 2631987, was never brought to the notice of the learned Sessions Judge. However, I have gone through the statement of Burnam Singh PW who was summoned by the Investigating. Officer in this case from his village and he made a statement on 2831987 as an eyewitness. He does not explain in his statement as to what he did after seeing the occurrence. Documents on the file show that this man either did not see the occurrence or after seeing the occurrence, he never bothered about this occurrence.

In any case, it is a case of no description of the assailant in the First Information Report, no clue with the investigating officer as to how the petitioner came to be arrested by him in this case and how Guruam Singh was summoned to appear before him on 2831987. In these circumstances I am inclined to allow bail to the petitioner to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kapurthala.

Anything observed in this order will be irrelevant for consideration of the case on merits and, therefore, will not be taken into account while deciding the case.