Crl. Misc. -M No. 14226 of 2011 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. -M No. 14226 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.8.2011 Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha Singh ..Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present : Mr. I.P.S. Kohli, Advocate for the petitioner – Ranjodh Singh@ Jodha Singh. Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate for petitoner Harpreet Singh. Mr. K.S. Pannu, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab. Rajesh Bindal, J. This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Criminal Misc.- M Nos.14226 and 19380 of 2011 together as both the petitions arise out of the same FIR. Both the petitioners have been summoned to face trial in an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for petitioner Harpreet Singh submitted that the petitioner was not named in the FIR. He was not named in the statements of any of the eye witnesses recorded immediately after the alleged occurrence, however, he was named by Gurcharan Singh one of the injured witnesses in his statement recorded on 3.4.2010 of the alleged incident which took place on 27.3.2010. Gurcharan Singh stated that Harpreet Singh caused injury to him on his back. The statement was not supported by the MLR as no injury was found on the back of Gurcharan Singh. As the petitioner has been summoned to face trial, he will appear before the court. Petitioner Harpreet Singh has already challenged the order passed by the learned Court below summoning him to face trial. As far as petitioner Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha Singh is concerned, learned counsel has submitted that he has not been named in the FIR and statements of the eye witnesses recorded immediately after the incident. His name also cropped up in the statement of Gurcharan Singh Crl. Misc. -M No. 14226 of 2011 -2- recorded on 3.4.2010 where he alleged that Ranjodh Singh had given a dagger blow to his brother Manjit Singh in his stomach. There is only one injury in the stomach of Manjit Singh, which is attributed to Lakhwinder Singh. No other injury was found in the stomach of Manjit Singh, however, there is one injury i.e. incised wound of 2 cm x 1 cm on the left side of chest of deceased Manjit Singh, which is not attributed to any of the accused. However, the submission is that in the fight, where injuries have been caused to both sides, a small cut may have been caused with any weapon used by any person at the time of incident. It is not the kind of injury sought to be attributed by Gurcharan Singh in his statement and also not at the place stated by him. He further submitted that statement of Gurcharan Singh was an after-thought, which was got recorded by him on 3.4.2010 of the alleged occurrence on 27.3.2010 whereas all other eye witnesses of the crime did not name the petitioner. The falsity of the statement of Gurcharan Singh is also evident from the fact that the alleged injury to Harpreet Singh on his back was not supported by the MLR as no such injury was found. He further submitted that in terms of the order passed by this Court on 11.5.2011, the petitioner Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha Singh has already appeared before the Court below and is appearing regularly. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submitted that as far as petitioner Harpreet Singh is concerned, the injured witness has alleged that he has been caused injury by him. As far as petitioner Ranjodh Singh is concerned, he submitted that fifth injury on the body of deceased Manjit Singh is unexplained as the same has not been attributed to any person either in the FIR or in the subsequent statements either recorded by the Investigating Agency or in the Court. Heard learned counsel for the parties. As far as petitioner Harpreet Singh is concerned, he has been summoned to face trial in an application filed by the prosecution under Section 319 Cr.P.C.. However, the fact remains that he was not named in the FIR or the statements of the eye witnesses recorded immediately after the alleged occurrence. He was named by Gurcharan Singh, one of the injured witnesses in his statement got recorded on 3.4.2010 of the alleged occurrence on 27.3.2010 alleging an injury on his back. However, no such injury was found when Gurcharan Singh was examined in PGI Chandigarh, Crl. Misc. -M No. 14226 of 2011 -3- having been referred from Hospital at Nangal. Considering the aforesaid fact, in my opinion, the petitioner deserves the concession of pre arrest bail. Let him appear before the Court below on the date already fixed and submit his bail bonds. As far as petitioner Ranjodh Singh @ Jodha Singh is concerned in his case as well, he was not named in the FIR or the statements recorded immediately after the incident. His name also appeared in the statement of Gurcharan Singh recorded later. No doubt there is one injury measuring 2 cm x 1 cm on the left side of the chest of the deceased, which is unexplained. However, considering the specific allegation of Gurcharan Singh in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also in the Court where he alleged that petitioner Ranjodh Singh had given a dagger blow to his brother Manjit Singh, deceased in his abdomen even if benefit is given for the place where the injury was caused, the resultant alleged injury cannot be the wound measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. Considering the aforesaid facts, interim bail granted to the petitioner Ranjodh Singh on 11.5.2011 is made absolute. The petition stands disposed of. ( Rajesh Bindal ) 10.8.2011 Judge Meenu