Crl. Misc. No. M-17021 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. 17021 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.08.09 Mohinder Singh son of Charan Singh resident of village Fatehgarh Shukar Chak, Tehsil and District Amritsar. ... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAM SUNDER Present:- Mr. Ranjan Lakhanpal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Vivek Chauhan, AAG, Punjab, for the respondent – State. Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * * SHAM SUNDER, J. This petition, under Section 439 of Cr.P.C., for grant of regular bail, has been filed by the accused-petitioner, in case FIR No. 77, dated 11.03.07, under Sections 148, 302, and 324 read with Section 149 IPC, Police Station Sadar, Amritsar, which was registered, against him, and his co-accused, on the allegations, that he alongwith his co-accused abducted Naranjan Singh, a Police Head-Constable, and took him to his (Mohinder Singh's) house, where, his murder, was committed by causing injuries, on his person. Crl. Misc. No. M-17021 of 2009 2 2. I have heard the Counsel for the parties, and gone through the record of the case, carefully. 3. The Counsel for the accused-petitioner, has submitted that this is the third petition for regular bail, having been filed, by the petitioner, as the first petition, for such relief, was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 14.01.08, and the second petition, for the same relief, was dismissed, vide order dated 17.09.08. He has further submitted that the petitioner, has been in custody since 11.03.07. He has further submitted that, no injury, was attributed to the petitioner, on the person of the deceased. He has further submitted that the only injury attributed, to the petitioner, is only, on the person of the injured-cum-eye witness. He has further submitted that, even, during the course of inquiry, conducted by the Police, the accused-petitioner, was found innocent. He has further submitted that, on the other hand, the members of the complainant party, including Naranjan Singh, entered into the house of the accused- petitioner, and caused injuries, on his person, and on the person of other members of his family. He has further submitted that the conclusion of trial, is likely to take a long time. He has further submitted that the petitioner, is an old man of 70 years. 4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent, has submitted that, being a member of an unlawful assembly and armed with kirpan, the accused-petitioner, caused injuries, on the person of the eye- witness. He has further submitted that since Naranjan Singh, a Police Head Constable, was, at the first instance, abducted by the accused- petitioner, and his co-accused, and was taken to his (Mohinder Singh's) house, and, there injuries, were inflicted upon him, resulting into his death, in case, the accused-petitioner, is released on bail, the possibility Crl. Misc. No. M-17021 of 2009 3 of tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses, could not be ruled out. He has further submitted that, on 26.02.09, as many as four prosecution witnesses, were present, but only one prosecution witness, was examined-in-chief, and was bound down for the next date of hearing, as the Court time was over. He has further submitted that the prosecution witnesses, were present, on a number of dates, but they could not be examined, on the ground, that either the lawyers, were abstaining from work, or on account of the factum, that the Court time was over, or the accused, in custody, were not produced, or the defence Counsel, took objections, regarding the piece-meal recording of evidence. He has further submitted that two witnesses, have already been examined-in- chief, and their cross-examination, was deferred, on the request of the Counsel for the accused. 5. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, it is not a fit case, in which the bail, should be granted to the accused-petitioner, for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. The accused-petitioner, was a member of an unlawful assembly. He alongwith other co-accused, abducted Naranjan Singh, who was taken to his (Mohinder Singh's) house, where his murder, was allegedly committed, by inflicting injuries, on his person. At that time, the accused-petitioner, was armed with a kirpan, and his co-accused Ranjit Singh, was armed with a sua, Bhajan Singh, was armed with a datar, Bachan Singh, and Ajit Pal Singh, were empty handed. During the trial of the case, it would be decided, as to whether, the members of the complainant party, were aggressors or not. What is the effect of the result of inquiry, conducted by the Police, on the merits of the case, shall also be seen, at the time of final Crl. Misc. No. M-17021 of 2009 4 decision of the case. No doubt, the accused-petitioner, is stated to be of the age of 70 years, and, as such, is an old man, yet keeping in view the seriousness of allegations, heinous and grave nature of the offences; the attending circumstances, in which, the alleged offences, were committed, by him; and the possibility of tampering with the evidence and influencing the witnesses, in case, released on bail, no ground, whatsoever, is made out, for the acceptance of Criminal Misc. No. M- 17021 of 2009. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. No. M-17021 of 2009, deserves to be dismissed. 6. For the reasons recorded above, Criminal Misc. No. M-17021 of 2009, is dismissed. Any observation made, in this order, shall not be taken, as an expression of mind, on merits of the case. 7. The trial Court, is, however, directed to expedite the trial, keeping in view the factum, that the accused-petitioner, and his co- accused, have been in custody since long. The trial Court, shall also ensure, that the witnesses of the prosecution, who come present, on a particular date, are not sent back unexamined, except for legally sustainable reasons. The District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, is also directed to ensure, that the compliance of the order, is made strictly, as the copies of the order- sheets recorded, in the case, which have been produced, by the State Counsel, and taken on record, clearly exhibit that, there was some lapse, on the part of the trial Court, or the Courts, which dealt with the matter, after the commitment of the case, at one or the other stage. The District & Sessions Judge, Amritsar, after going through the order-sheets himself, shall also ensure that, such lapses, in the conduct of trials, are not, repeated by the trial Courts. The compliance report, shall be sent by the District and Sessions Judge, Amritsar, within a period of Crl. Misc. No. M-17021 of 2009 5 14 days, from the date of receipt of a copy of the order, and from time to time, until the conclusion of trial. 8. The Registry, is directed to comply with the order, immediately. 21.08.09 (SHAM SUNDER) Amodh JUDGE