Criminal Misc.-M No. 21655 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. -M No. 21655 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 25.8.2011 Leela Singh alias Gurtej Singh and others .. Petitioners v. The State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. B. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. J. S. Brar, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. S. S. Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. ... Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition is for grant of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners, who are accused in FIR No. 60 dated 7.5.2011, registered under Sections 452/324/323/427/436/307/382/148/149 IPC, Police Station, Giddarbaha, District Muktsar. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that cause of dispute is a plot measuring 2 kanals and 19 marlas. The petitioners had purchased a large chunk of land measuring 78 kanals and 8 marlas from Smt. Chhoto and Murti in the year 1974. In fact, possession of the entire land including 2 kanals and 19 marlas was handed over to the petitioners at that time. However, khewat number and killa numbers of land measuring 2 kanals and 19 marlas were not mentioned in the sale deed. The complainant party, who are land grabbers, purchased this small portion of 2 kanals and 19 marlas of land and tried to take forcible possession from the petitioners, as a result of which the fight took place. The petitioners had constructed a room on this portion of land in which a Mali was living. There was electric connection. Though the complainant is living in a Criminal Misc.-M No. 21655 of 2011 [2] different village, but still the manner in which the persons have been named in the FIR shows as if he knew each and every person personally. An old man of 80 years, who was suffering from cancer, or even the ladies in the house were also not spared. Specific role was attributed to each and every person named in the FIR. Only one injury to Mohinder Singh was found to be grievous for which Section 307 IPC was invoked. The same is attributed to Jagdeep Singh, who has already surrendered. Petitioner No. 6- Lali Singh alias Gurman Singh is a juvenile as his date of birth is 28.2.1996. The injuries having been attributed to all other accused being simple in nature, the petitioners deserve the concession of pre-arrest bail. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as well as the complainant submitted that there are four injured, namely, Malkit Singh, Mohinder Singh, Nachhatar Singh, and Roosh Singh from the side of the complainant, who were caused total number of 40 injuries. Mohinder Singh, who suffered injury in the abdomen, had to be operated upon. He remained admitted in hospital for a period of about one month. Even now he is not fully cured, as he is unable to digest food. Even injury on the person of Roosh Singh was also found to be grievous. Sahib Singh and Gora Singh, petitioners No. 2 and 4, and other co-accused, have been attributed repeated injuries on the head and other vital parts of the body. In fact, the complainant party had taken possession of the land after it was purchased. They have even constructed the boundary wall and a kotha there. The accused party in number came there in the mid-night and damaged the boundary wall. The cots and other material lying there were burnt. The vehicles were also damaged. A double barrel gun, which was snatched by them from the complainant, was surrendered by them in court. Heard learned counsel for the parties. A perusal of the allegations in the FIR and the MLR shows that besides Jagdeep Singh, who has already surrendered, Sahib Singh and Gora Singh have been attributed repeated injuries on the persons of Malkit Singh, Nachhatar Singh and Roosh Singh on vital parts of the body. Considering the aforesaid facts, in my opinion, Sahib Singh and Gora Singh do not deserve concession of pre-arrest bail, even if the Criminal Misc.-M No. 21655 of 2011 [3] injuries attributed to them were not found to be grievous in nature. However, their intention was evident from the kind of weapons used. As far as petitioner No. 6-Lali Singh alias Gurman Singh is concerned, who is claimed to be a juvenile, prima facie, considering the certificate to be correct at this stage, he is granted concession of pre-arrest bail. Let petitioner-Lali Singh alias Gurman Singh appear before the Investigating Officer on 5.9.2011 at 10.00 A.M. In case of arrest, he shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. He shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. He shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. However, the claim for bail on his being a juvenile shall be considered by the Juvenile Justice Board after recording a finding about his age on the basis of evidence led and other para-meters laid down in Section 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2000. As far as petitioners No. 1, 3 and 5, namely, Leela Singh alias Gurtej Singh, Ballu Singh alias Balraj Singh and Kala Singh alias Gurmeet Singh are concerned, considering that the injuries attributed to them having been found to be simple in nature, I do not find that they are required to be taken into custody for the purpose of investigation. Accordingly, they are granted concession of pre-arrest bail. They are directed to appear before the Investigating Officer on 5.9.2011 at 10.00 A.M. In case of arrest, they shall be released on furnishing of bail bonds to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. They shall appear before the Investigating Officer as and when called upon for further investigation. They shall also be bound by all the conditions as contained in Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition stands disposed of. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 25.8.2011 mk. Criminal Misc.-M No. 21655 of 2011 [4]