CRM-M-31867-2010 (O&M) [ 1 ] CRM-M-37254-2010 (O&M) CRM-M-10544-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CRM-M-31867-2010 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. Balwinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State of Punjab ...Respondent (2) CRM-M-37254-2010 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. Ricky Kaushal ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent (3) CRM-M-10544-2011 (O&M) Date of decision:29.08.2011. Kiran Bala ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr. Gorakh Nath, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-31867-2010. Mr. Akashdeep Batra, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-37254-2010. Mr. Ram Bilas Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner in CRM-M-10544-2011. Mr. A.S.Rai, DAG, Punjab. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. CRM-M-31867-2010 (O&M) [ 2 ] CRM-M-37254-2010 (O&M) CRM-M-10544-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing CRM-M-31867-2010 titled as `Balwinder Singh Vs. The State of Punjab', CRM-M-37254-2010 titled as `Ricky Kaushal Vs. State of Punjab' and CRM-M-10544-2011 titled as `Kiran Bala Vs. State of Punjab' in which the petitioner(s) have prayed for grant of regular bail in a case registered vide FIR No.36 dated 23.06.2009, under Sections 302, 148 and 149 of IPC at Police Station Division No.4, Ludhiana (Punjab). In the aforesaid three cases, 3 accused have prayed for bail who are facing trial in respect of the murder of Neelam Rani which took place on 23.06.2009. Neelam Rani (deceased) was first married to Jinder Shergill and had a son, namely, Sunny Shergill. After the death of her first husband, she married with Kulwinder Singh and was carrying 6-7 months' pregnancy at the time of her murder. She was employed in the department of Home Guards, Punjab and was owner of sufficient agricultural land in village Bhutia. She was living in a house in Quilla Mohalla, Ludhiana with her son Sunny Shergill, uncle Balwinder Singh (petitioner in CRM-M-31867-2010) and her mother Kuldeep Kaur @ Guddo. The other two petitioners, namely, Ricky Kaushal (petitioner in CRM-M-37254-2010) and Kiran Bala (petitioner in CRM-M- 10544-2011) are allegedly the friends of her son Sunny Shergill. It is alleged that there are three versions of the alleged occurrence reported by Sunny Shergill, Kulwinder Singh and Paramjit Singh. The first version is of Sunny Shergill which was recorded on 23.06.2009 in which he had alleged that her mother had contracted second marriage with Kulwinder Singh which was being opposed by her maternal grandfather Balwinder Singh (petitioner) who had killed his mother with a Khanjar by giving three injuries in her waist on the right side and five injuries in her abdomen. He tried to save his mother and raised alarm, on which Paramjit Singh came to the spot and the alleged assailant Balwinder Singh (petitioner) ran away but his mother died at the spot. Kulwinder Singh got recorded his statement under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 24.06.2009 in which he had alleged CRM-M-31867-2010 (O&M) [ 3 ] CRM-M-37254-2010 (O&M) CRM-M-10544-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: that Balwinder Singh (petitioner) and Sunny Shergill (non-applicant) were unhappy with Neelam Rani for her contracting second marriage with him and used to quarrel, on account of which she had stopped paying expenses (Kharcha) to them. Neelam Rani used to say that the entire property is owned by her and she would not give any share to anyone. These circumstances instigated both Balwinder Singh (petitioner) and Sunny Shergill (non-applicant) to take the life of Neelam Rani. He categorically named Ricky Kaushal (petitioner), Gurdeep Singh @ Happy, Prince Mehra and Kiran Bala (petitioner) to have participated in the murder of Neelam Rani alongwith Balwinder Singh (petitioner) and Sunny Shergill (non-applicant). He also stated that Paramjit Singh came to the spot on hearing alarm and Neelam Rani could not bear the injuries and died at the spot. Paramjit Singh had alleged that on hearing the noise of quarrel coming from the house of Neelam Rani, he sent his son Lucky to her house to see as to what is happening, who came back and told that Balwinder Singh and Sunny Shergill are inflicting knife injuries on the person of Neelam Rani. Balwinder Singh (petitioner) applied for regular bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed on 02.06.2010. Thereafter, he applied for bail before this Court vide CRM-M-19710-2010 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 27.08.2010. Thereafter, he did not apply for bail before the learned Court below and has rather filed the present bail application before this Court. Similarly, Ricky Kaushal had earlier applied for bail before the learned Court below which was dismissed on 29.04.2010. He had also applied for bail before this Court vide CRM-M-18164-2010 which was dismissed on 27.08.2010 with the observation that “in view of the different version regarding the involvement of number of person or group of individuals, it is not prudent to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner at this stage. Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition at this stage with liberty to file a fresh one after some evidence is produced”. However, it is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner did not apply for bail before the Court below again and has filed the present second bail application CRM-M-31867-2010 (O&M) [ 4 ] CRM-M-37254-2010 (O&M) CRM-M-10544-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: before this Court on the ground that now some evidence has been led. The stand of the petitioner (Balwinder Singh) is that he has been falsely implicated in this case as there was no motive attached for the alleged crime. He has submitted that if Kulwinder Singh is alleged to have seen the occurrence, then why he did not report the matter to the police immediately on 23.06.2009 itself instead of reporting it on 24.06.2009. He further submitted that the version of Kulwinder Singh cannot be believed as it is not corroborated by the version of Paramjit Singh who has not deposed about the presence of Gurdeep Singh, Prince Mehra, Ricky Kaushal and Kiran Bala at the time of occurrence. It is further submitted that the injuries are alleged to have been caused with `Khanjar' but no stab wound has been found on the person of Neelam Rani. The petitioner Balwinder Singh is in custody since 24.06.2009, whereas the trial is not making any headway. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Ricky Kaushal) has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case. He submitted that 6 witnesses have been examined so far and the trial is not making any headway. It is further submitted that Paramjit Singh has not named him in his statement. Learned counsel for the petitioner (Kiran Bala) has submitted that she has been falsely implicated in this case as she has not played any role. On the contrary, learned State Counsel has argued that it is a ghastly murder in which all the petitioners have been specifically named and the trial is in progress as the prosecution evidence is being led. It is further submitted that not only Neelam Rani has been put to death but also the child in her womb of 7 months' has been killed. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. No doubt, that there are three different versions of the alleged occurrence in which the assailants have tried to shift their burden upon the others and the evidence is being led by the prosecution to prove as to who is the person or the group of persons who have taken the life of Neelam Rani and her unborn child. The son of Neelam Rani, namely, Sunny Shergill, has implicated CRM-M-31867-2010 (O&M) [ 5 ] CRM-M-37254-2010 (O&M) CRM-M-10544-2011 (O&M) ::::::::: Balwinder Singh, his maternal grandfather, on the ground that he was against the second marriage of Neelam Rani with Kulwinder Singh, whereas Kulwinder Singh has alleged that both Sunny Shergill and Balwinder Singh were involved in the crime alongwith the friends of Sunny Shergill. According to the post mortem report, the deceased Neelam Rani had suffered 26 incised wounds on the right side of her abdomen ranging from 1” x 1/2” to 2” x 3/4” which shows that the assailants were pre-determined to finish the life of Neelam Rani and the child in her womb. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and also the heinousness of the offence in which two lives have been taken away but without making any observation on the merits, I do not find these cases fit for grant of bail. Hence, all these three petitions are hereby dismissed. However, the learned Trial Court, who is seized of the trial, is directed to expedite the trial and examine prosecution evidence by giving short adjournments. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of other connected cases. August 29, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) vinod* JUDGE