Crl. Misc. No.M-21693, 33961 of 2011 and 735 of 2012 1 .. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M- 21693 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19th, 2012 Malvinder Singh and another .... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent 2. Criminal Misc. No. M-33961 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19th, 2012 Sukhwinder Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent 3. Criminal Misc. No. M-735 of 2012 (O&M) Date of Decision: January 19th, 2012 Daljit Kaur .... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana .... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present Mr. K.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate, for the petitioners Mr. Sagar Deswal, AAG, Haryana, for the State, assisted by Mr. R.S.Tacoria, Advocate and Mr. Sumeet Sheokand, Advocate, for the complainant. Crl. Misc. No.M-21693, 33961 of 2011 and 735 of 2012 2 .. VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J. The above mentioned three petitions have been brought for anticipatory and regular bail, in a case registered by way of FIR No. 172 dated 24.6.2011 at Police Station Pehowa, District Kurukshetra, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 302, 307 read with sections 149 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code. To be specific, Malvinder Singh and Baljinder Singh have sought anticipatory bail in Criminal Misc. No.M-21693 of 2011. Sukhwinder Singh has sought regular bail in Criminal Misc. No.M-33961- M of 2011 and Daljit Kaur has also sought regular bail in her petition bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-735 of 2012. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the role of Malvinder Singh and Baljinder Singh appears practically in the end of the FIR and the allegation against them is that they were also present at the spot and they were instigating Sukhwinder Singh and his family members to harm the complainant, Dhanpati (deceased). According to him, the petitioners have no connection with Sukhwinder Singh and others and they had not even any motive to participate in the occurrence against the complainant. He has submitted that apart from instigating Sukhwinder Singh and others to harm the complainant, they are not even said to have been armed with any weapon. According to him, if they would have been there at the spot, their presence would have been spoken of by the complainant in the very beginning. He has further submitted that the statement on the part of the complainant is motivated. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Sukhwinder Singh was not present at the spot. According to him, as per Crl. Misc. No.M-21693, 33961 of 2011 and 735 of 2012 3 .. the call details of the phone of Sukhwinder Singh(Annexure P2) he was present on 24.6.2011, the date of occurrence, at Bhuna Fatehgarh at 9.47 o'clock and was moving towards Sirsa and he could not be expected to be present at the spot. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that Daljit Kaur is not named in the FIR. According to him, what has been mentioned in the FIR is that Sukhwinder Singh, his wife and his two daughters were there at the spot, who had put kerosene oil on Dhanpati and set her afire. He has further submitted that Daljit Kaur is a young woman and a student, who is entitled to the concession of bail. Learned State counsel and learned counsel for the complainant have opposed the petition. According to them, the facts of the case clearly come in the affidavit of Inspector Karta Ram, which is on the file. They have further submitted that the petitioners have criminal past and as mentioned in the affidavit of Mahipal at page 19 of Criminal Misc. No.M-21693 of 2011, there are six cases pending against the petitioners. It is a case where Dhanpati, the lodger of the FIR died on account of the burn injuries, she suffered in the incident. The deceased is said to have no previous enmity with Malvinder Singh and Baljinder Singh sons of Gurnam Singh. There is no allegation in the FIR that Malvinder Singh and Baljinder Singh were armed at the time of occurrence. Their presence is stated at the end of the version of the occurrence and what words they used to instigate Sukhwinder Singh and his family members, are not coming in the FIR. What is alleged is that they were instigating Sukhwinder Singh and his family members to harm the complainant. Crl. Misc. No.M-21693, 33961 of 2011 and 735 of 2012 4 .. When it is a case that Sukhwinder Singh and his family members came with kerosene oil and sticks wrapped with cloth with a clear intention to set Dhanpati on fire, in what words, they could be instigated by the petitioners for harming her. So far as Sukhwinder Singh is concerned, he is said to have made 11 calls to his wife, Manjit Kaur on 24.6.2011. The first call was made at 9.47 o'clock and the last call is at 13.45 o'clock. Similarly, Manjit Kaur is shown by Annexure P2 to have made 16 calls to her husband Sukhwinder Singh on the same day, the first having been made at 9.46 o'clock and the last at 13.58 o'clock. These call details certainly show that phone of Sukhwinder Singh was at the places mentioned above but one thing that does not find answer is as to what was the necessity for exchange of 27 calls, within a short period of four hours, between Sukhwinder Singh and his wife. Can it not be a case of creation of evidence, where some one else using the phone of Sukhwinder Singh was making the calls showing that it was not possible for the caller to reach the place of occurrence at the time of its taking place. There is oral evidence of his participation in the occurrence and it is to be seen at the trial as to what value has to be attached to the same in the presence of the aforesaid call details. Though, the name of Daljit Kaur does not appear in the FIR, yet it is not the case that Sukhwinder Singh had more than two daughters. If Daljit Kaur is one of his two daughters, then absence of her name cannot be said to give any benefit to her. The manner in which the offence has been committed prima facie shows that the petitioner Daljit Kaur is not entitled to bail. Crl. Misc. No.M-21693, 33961 of 2011 and 735 of 2012 5 .. Keeping in view the aforesaid discussion, Criminal Misc. No.M- 21693 of 2011, filed by Malvinder Singh and Baljinder Singh seeking pre-arrest bail is allowed and the order dated 3.8.2011 passed by this court, granting them interim anticipatory bail is made absolute. The other two petitions, i.e., Criminal Misc. No. M-33961-M of 2011 filed by Sukhwinder Singh and Criminal Misc. No. M-735 of 2012 filed by Daljit Kaur seeking regular bail are dismissed. Any expression of opinion appearing hereinabove is for the limited purpose of deciding these petitions. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) JUDGE January 19th, 2012 som