Crl. Misc. No.M-1621 of 2011 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-1621 of 2011 Date of decision: 09.02.2011 Daljit Singh alias Nikka and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .. Respondent Present:- Mr. A.S. Sullar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Harmeet Singh Deol, Addl. A.G., Haryana. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 24.09.2010 for the offences under Sections 326, 324, 323, 341, 148 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Jakhal, Tehsil Tohana, District Fatehabad. The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the complaint of Malkiat Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that they reside in the fields and there was a small habitation of Sukhdev Singh son of Pritam Singh at a distance of 10/12 acres from them. Sukhdev Singh had taken land of Tarsem Singh son of Ranjit Singh, which was situated near the land of the complainant. A passage to the fields of Ranjit Singh goes from the side of village Kyod Kalan. The land leading from the Sandhawas to Kyod Kalan abuts the land of the complainant. A culvert is on the said road which is used for discharge of waste water from the complainant's fields. Sukhdev Singh, etc. were trying to obstruct the discharge of water from their fields. In this regard, hot exchanges of words had occurred between them. A Panchayat was to be convened at Police Crl. Misc. No.M-1621 of 2011 2 Station Jakhal. On the date of the incident i.e. 24.09.2010 at 4.00 p.m., the complainant Malkiat Singh along with his brother Surjit Singh, father-Gian Singh and their relative Harvinder Singh and friend of the complainant namely Sukhwinder Singh Member Panchayat were coming in their Balero Jeep from Police Station Jakhal. When they came from the village side and were to turn on the main road, at that time, Sukhdev Singh and Kala Singh sons of Pritam Singh, armed with swords, Pal Singh armed with rod, Taari Singh armed with sword, Nikka Singh alias Daljit Singh (petitioner No.1) armed with lathi, Parminder Singh armed with hockey stick, Gurmail Singh armed with lathi, Sukhdev Singh (petitioner No.3) armed with lathi and Harvinder Singh (petitioner No.2) armed with kappa, Amrik Singh, Sardul Singh and Gobind Singh armed with talwar came there. Amrik Singh stopped his Maruti Car on the way in front of the jeep of the complainant side. When the complainant got down from the jeep and asked the reason for stopping the way, on this Sukhdev Singh and Kala Singh exhorted that the complainant be taught a lesson for opening the culvert. On this all the assailants assaulted the complainant-side with their respective weapons. Sukhdev Singh and Amrik Singh gave one blow each with the sword on Sukhwinder Singh, Member Panchayat. Pal Singh gave a rod blow on the head of Malkiat Singh on which he collapsed to the ground. All the assailants turn by turn caused injuries. The complainant- side raised an alarm of maar diya, maar diya. On this, Harbans Singh and Kuldip Singh rushed from the locality and arrived at the spot. On witnessing them, all the assailants fled away along with their respective weapons. A gun was also lying in the car of Amrik Singh. The assailants had also received injuries in the incident. It is submitted that during investigation only Pal Singh alias Rashpal Singh son of Sukhdev Singh and Amrik Singh have been attributed grievous injuries and others have not Crl. Misc. No.M-1621 of 2011 3 been attributed grievous injuries. It is submitted that it is a case of cross- version in which injuries have been caused to the complainant-side by the petitioners' side. In response, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the custody of the petitioners is required so as to carry out effective investigations in the case. It is submitted that the nature of injuries caused by the petitioners is to be ascertained; besides, the petitioners had formed an unlawful assembly and had assaulted the complainant-side. Therefore, they are not entitled to the concession of pre- arrest bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioners' side had come duly armed at the spot in front of the Balero vehicle in which the complainants were travelling. The petitioners assaulted and caused the injuries to the complainant-side. The motive for causing the injuries was that there was a dispute regarding a culvert in which the complainant-side was discharging its waste water from their fields. The petitioners' side wanted that the culvert should be closed. In this regard, a Panchayat was convened in the Police Station and the incident had occurred after the complainant-side were returning from the Police Station. In the cross-version FIR No.161 dated 25.09.2010 (Annexure P-2) has been recorded on the statement of Sukhwant Singh. In the said case also, injuries are stated to have been caused by the complainant side to the petitioners' side. These aspects would, however, require to be considered and gone into by the Investigating Authorities for which their (petitioners') custodial interrogation is necessary. A specific role of causing the injuries has been attributed to the petitioners. A perusal of the medical legal report of Sukhwinder Singh shows that he has been caused injuries with sharp edged weapons and there was an encircled Crl. Misc. No.M-1621 of 2011 4 incised wound on the right thumb; besides, distill part of the right middle finger has been amputated. In the facts and circumstances, no ground to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners is made out. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) February 09, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet