Crl. Misc. No.36103 of 2011 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.36103 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: December 27, 2011 Hardev Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present: Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Sivia, DAG, Punjab K. KANNAN, J(ORAL) 1. The petition is for anticipatory bail for alleged offence under Sections 307, 353, 186, 332, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in case FIR No.248 dated 08.12.2011 at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala. The incident in which the petitioner is said to have been involved had an earlier history of the petitioner’s brother having been involved in a criminal case registered against him for having caused damage to the Railway’s property that gave rise to registration of case for offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, lodged at the instance of the Railway Protection Force. In respect of the same incident another case has already been registered under Section 279 and 427 of the IPC at Police Station Railway Police Station, Patiala. On being produced before the Court, it appears that the petitioner’s brother had given a complaint against the police contending that cash of Rs.4200/- and mobile phone had been snatched by the police officials. - Crl. Misc. No.36103 of 2011 (O&M) 2. The contention is that on account of the fact that the petitioner’s brother had made a complaint to the Magistrate, the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case. The incident is said to have been taken place when the investigating officer in the case registered against his brother and two other police officials were going in Gypsy vehicle and at that time petitioner’s brother, his father and two others including the petitioner were said to have attacked the police officials with iron rods and pipes. In the case that had been originally lodged reporting the incident as having taken place on 08.10.2011, there has been a reference to four persons as having caused injuries without naming the petitioner but the petitioner was implicated by name only through supplementary statements received from the police themselves. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that apart from the non-mention of his name in FIR, some overt-acts had been attributed to the petitioner through the statement of Banarsi Dass. It is stated therein that the petitioner had been armed with iron pipe and he along with three others stopped the Gypsy and attacked with the intention to kill him. The injury which the petitioner has suffered on the head is said to have been caused by the petitioner’s father Ranjit Singh. The statement of Ashok Kumar implicates the petitioner as a person who has caused injury on the back of Jang Bahadur with iron pipe. Jang Bahadur has stated that the petitioner had attacked on his back with iron rod. The injury on the head suffered by Banarsi Dass has been entered in the MLR as “simple.” The statement of Ashok Kumar does not record any injury on himself, while the same is stated to have been suffered by Jang Bahadur by hitting on the back with iron road. These injuries are also stated to be simple in nature. - Crl. Misc. No.36103 of 2011 (O&M) 4. It appears that Charanjit Singh and Ranjit Singh have already been apprehended and they are still in confinement. As far as petitioner is concerned, the fact that his name does not figure in the first complaint and the injury stated to have been caused by him was only on Jang Bahadur which is also simple injury, I would give to the petitioner the benefit at this stage and I am of the view that he is entitled for being released on bail in the event of his arrest by the investigating officer to his satisfaction and as per the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. He will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. 27.12.2011 (K. KANNAN) vcgarg JUDGE - Crl. Misc. No.36103 of 2011 (O&M) 1. The application is for anticipatory bail for alleged offence under Sections 307, 353, 186, 332, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in case FIR No.248 dated 08.12.2011 at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala. The incident in which the petitioner is said to have been involved had an early history of the petitioner’s brother having been involved in a criminal case registered against him for having caused damage to the Railway’s property and allegedly committed offence under Section 154 of the Railways Act, lodged at the instance of the Railway Protection Force and in respect of the same incident another case has already been registered under Section 279 and 427 of the IPC at Police Station Railway Police Station, Patiala. On being produced before the Court, it appears that the petitioner’s brother had given a complaint against the police contending that cash of Rs.4200/- and mobile phone had been snatched by the police officials. 2. The contention is on account of the fact that the petitioner’s brother had made a complaint to the Magistrate and the petitioner has been falsely implicated in the case and the incident is said to have been taken place when the investigating officer in the case registered against his brother and two others, were stoped when they were going in their Gypsy, petitioner’s brother, his father and two others including him were said to have attacked the police officials with iron rods and pipes. In the case that had been originally lodged reporting the incident that took place on 08.10.2011, there has been a reference to four persons as having caused injuries. On a supplementary statement received from the police themselves, the petitioner has been implicated. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that in the original complaint his name does not figure and only through - Crl. Misc. No.36103 of 2011 (O&M) supplementary statement brought through three police officials, some overt- act had been attributed to the petitioner. Through the statement of Banarsi Dass it is contended that the petitioner had been armed with iron pipe and has stopped the Zypsy and attacked with the intention to kill him. The injury which the petitioner has suffered on the head is said to have been caused by the petitioner’s father Ranjit Singh. The statement of Ashok Kumar implicate the petitioner as a person who has caused injury on his back with iron pipe. Jang Bahadur has stated that the petitioner had attacked on his back with iron rod. The injury on the head suffered by Banarsi Dass has been entered in the MLR as simple. The statement of Ashok Kumar does not record any injury, while the injury said to have been suffered by Jang Bahadur was by a hit on the back with iron road. This injury also stated to be simple in nature. 4. It appears that Charanjit Singh and Ranjit Singh have already been apprehended and they are still in confinement. As far as petitioner is concerned, the fact that his name does not figure in the first complaint and the injury stated to have been caused by him was only on Jang Bahadur which is also simple injury, I would give to the petitioner the benefit at this stage and I am of the view that he is entitled for being released on bail in the event of his arrest by the investigating officer to his satisfaction and as per the conditions as laid down under Section 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. and he will join the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation. - Crl. Misc. No.36103 of 2011 (O&M) Both the writ petition challenges the correctness of the order rejecting the application filed by the petitioner(s) for re-opening the case(s), which was dismissed by the labour Court. The reference to the labour Court appeared to be on dispute raised by the workmen alleging termination of service is not in accordance with law. But the petitioners claimed that there had no notice of the reference by the State to the labour Court and their absence on the date when the cases have been called had been for want of knowledge of record and the pendency of the cases before the labour Court. If so happened on the date when the application were moved, more than thirty days had lapsed and the order of dismissal had come to be published in the gazette as required under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the labour Court therefore held that after the order it had functous officio and did not have jurisdiction to entertain the application. There is a pre-ponderance of judicial pronouncement that allows for courts to entice the application and where having not done, the High Courts in the respective jurisiciton under Article 226 have allowed for restoration of cases, disposed of otherwise than on merits, if reasonable costs for non-apperance had been shown. To my mind, the whole exercise becomes purely academic considering the Courts that have taken steps over a period of three years or more. The counsel for the respondent states that the respondent-management itself has ceases to exist and the factory was closed later transferred to another establishment which is also closed its operation. Neither the issue of reinstatement nor the issue of demand of compensation for all these workmen who have not rendered any service could obtain any relevance on that point of time, I do not press to examine the case and find an - Crl. Misc. No.36103 of 2011 (O&M) occasion to remit the case(s) for disposal before the labour Court. It would be an act that i The writ petitions are consequently dismissed. -