Crl.Misc. No.M-33331 of 2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc. No.M-33331 of 2010. Date of decision: July 14, 2011. Gurnam Singh. .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Vivek Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Arshvinder Singh, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr.G.P.S.Bal, Advocate, for respondent No.2. * * * M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL). Respondent No.2 was granted the concession of bail on the following grounds but the said grounds seem to be not good for the reasons mentioned below each ground: - Ist Ground : complainant Gurnam Singh is not an eye witness and the occurrence was allegedly told by the deceased to the complainant and his mother. But a perusal of the FIR indicates that . . . 1 Crl.Misc. No.M-33331 of 2010 Gurnam Singh and his mother has actually seen the occurrence while going on a motorcycle and that on their statement the FIR had been registered; 2nd Ground : the version of the complainant has been considered to be doubtful as one of the co-accused Karnail Singh had been found innocent and kept in Column No.2. The said ground is not sufficient enough to reflect that respondent No.2 was not, in any manner, involved in the matter. The principle of falsus in uno falsus in omnibus is not applicable to the trials in India; 3rd Ground : the respondent No.2, has been attributed two injuries i.e. Injury Nos.5 & 6, on the person of the deceased. These being simple injuries and there being no corresponding injury on the chest. The above said ground also seems to be not sustainable for the grant of bail as a person having participated in the occurrence and inflicted injuries on the person of the deceased cannot be said, at initial stage, to have no intention as has been observed by the Court granting bail to respondent No.2. The common intention of respondent No.2 was yet to be established on the basis of the evidence. The above said ground also seem to be an illegal ground to grant the concession of bail. It was pre-mature for the Sessions Judge to . . . 2 Crl.Misc. No.M-33331 of 2010 presume that respondent No.2 did not have any common intention especially when he has been attributed two specific injuries which are, prima facie, corroborated by the medical evidence in the shape of Post-mortem report, Annexure P-2. The reasons adopted by the Sessions Judge, for the grant of concession of bail vide order dated 18.10.2010, to respondent No.2, who had merely undergone a period of detention of 3½ months w.e.f. 01.07.2010, the casual approach adopted by the Sessions Judge, granting the concession of regular bail on wrong principles and presumptions, warrant interference as there are extra ordinary exceptional circumstances in the present case to cancel the bail granted by the Sessions Judge, to respondent No.2. The bail order dated 18.10.2010, being illegal, the bail of respondent No.2, is cancelled. He is directed to surrender before the trial Court on or before next date of hearing failing which the Court will issue non-bailable warrants against him for arresting him. This order will not, in any manner, prejudice his rights to seek concession of regular bail on the grounds and circumstances in existence on the date of filing his fresh application for bail. I have considered the contention of Mr.G.P.S.Bal, learned counsel for respondent No.2, that the respondent has not misused the concession of bail. As the bail has been granted on the wrong parameters without any legitimate ground, at initial stage, mentioned above, the regular bail granted to respondent No.2, is . . . 3 Crl.Misc. No.M-33331 of 2010 liable to be rejected without prejudice to the right of respondent No.2, to file fresh application for regular bail. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 14, 2011. rka . . . 4