In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-3546 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:1.4.2009 Satpal Sharma .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab and another .....Respondents .... Present: Mr. Karanjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sudhir Nehra, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State. Mr. Pawan Sharma, Advocate for the complainant. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner prays for pre-arrest bail in FIR No.209 dated 17.10.2003 (Annexure-P.1) registered for the offenes under Sections 306 and 34 IPC. The petitioner was found innocent in the inquiry conducted by Assistant Superintendent of Police, City-I, Amritsar. Thereafter, cancellation report was filed on 15.3.2004 (Annexure-P.2). The learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran while declining the cancellation report has summoned the petitioner vide order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure- P.4) for the offence under Sections 302 and 120-B IPC. The FIR (Annexure-P.1) has been recorded on the statement of Jagmohan Singh-complainant, who is the elder brother of Rachhpal Singh Cr. Misc. No.M-3546/2009 [2] (deceased). It has been alleged that in the neighbourhood of Jagmohan Singh-complainant, Ashok Kumar son of Rattan Chand, resides. Tarsem Rani, mother of Ashok Kumar gave an application on 4.10.2003 that in the morning when her daughter-in-law went on the terrace in the toilet to answer the call of nature, on switching on the bulb, an unknown person had put a `Parna' around her neck so as to strangulate her and ran away. She had suspicion that the person who put the `Parna' had come through the house of Rachhpal Singh. On 16.10.2003, the complainant and his brother Rachhpal Singh (deceased) were going to Police Station for inquiry in respect of the application submitted by Tarsem Rani. Ashok Kumar and Satpal (petitioner) gave threats to Rachhpal Singh that they would beat him and they knew about the person who had come to their house and that the said person had been sent by him (Rachhpal Singh). Earlier also they were forcing Rachhpal Singh to depose in case FIR No.99 dated 25.5.2003 under Sections 306 and 34 IPC registered at Police Station Tarn Taran in which case the sister of Ashok Kumar had died. On 17.10.2003 at about 8.00/9.00 in the morning the complainant and his brother Rachhpal Singh were going to the police station regarding the complaint. While entering the police station, the brother of the complainant, namely, Rachhpal Singh fell down due to attack and he suffered an injury on the back of his head. Jagmohan Singh then arranged a conveyance and brought him to the Civil Hospital at the earliest. The brother of the complainant, namely, Rachhpal Singh was breathing on the way, however, while reaching the hospital the doctor declared him dead. It is alleged that Ashok Kumar and Satpal (petitioner) had threatened Rachhpal Singh to depose falsely and also allured him with Cr. Misc. No.M-3546/2009 [3] money and due to mental pressure he died. In the summoning order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure-P.4) it has been observed that the case of the complainant Jagmohan Singh was that on 16.10.2003 his brother Rachhpal Singh Sodhi was called by the Police to the Police Station City, Tarn Taran for inquiry. The complainant went to the police station for inquiry as to why he had been called. It was found that Rachhpal Singh had been called on the allegation that some person tried to strangulate the wife of Ashok Kumar by scaling the wall of the house of Rachhpal Singh and Rachhpal Singh was asked to disclose the identity of the person. It is alleged that on 17.10.2003, the complainant along with Rachhpal Singh reached the Police Station then the MHC told the complainant to sit there, however, a constable and Ashok Kumar took Rachhpal Singh in another room. When the complainant went inside to see where Rachhpal Singh had been taken he found that blood was oozing from the back portion of the head of Rachhpal Singh and large amount of blood had thereby collected on the ground. Rachhpal Singh was unconscious. The police officials asked the complainant to take Rachhpal Singh for treatment. The complainant told them that his brother had already expired but the Police bundled the body of Rachhpal Singh in a vehicle and reached Civil Hospital, Tarn Taran where he was declared dead. Ashok Kumar was a police official and was posted as Gunman to SSP, Tarn Taran. It is alleged that Ashok Kumar and Satpal (petitioner) in connivance with police officials had killed Rachhpal Singh. The cause of death in the case has been opined to be due to compression of the brain due to sub-dural haemorrhage on account of head injury which was sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. In the post-mortem report (Annexure-P.5), injury No.1 has Cr. Misc. No.M-3546/2009 [4] been observed as a lacerated wound of the size of 2 cm. x .5 cm. on the right parietal region of the head horizontally present. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that keeping in view the discrepant statements in the FIR (Annexure-P.1) and the statement on the basis of summoning order dated 11.12.2008 (Annexure-P.4) has been passed, it is evident that there are inconsistencies. Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted that the evidence has come on record that Rachhpal Singh had died due to `danda' blow. He has referred to the deposition of Baldev Singh son of Thakur Singh, who in his pre-charge evidence, has stated that Rachhpal Singh was hit with a `danda' by Ashok Kumar and he fell on the ground and blood started oozing from his head. Learned counsel for the State, on instructions from ASI Hardev Singh, Police Station City-I, Tarn Taran has submitted that the custody of the petitioner is not required for the purpose of investigation. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the matter. It may be noticed that the occurrence is of 17.10.2003. The Police investigated the case and found the petitioner to be innocent. The case was initially registered for the offence under Section 306 IPC. The main injury is attributed to Ashok Kumar and not to the petitioner. The discrepancies, if any, in the statement of the complainant-Jagmohan Singh would more appropriately be considered and gone into after evidence has been led in the case. At this stage, it would be improper to comment one way or the other on the same. Learned counsel for the State has submitted, on instructions, that custody of the petitioner is not required. Cr. Misc. No.M-3546/2009 [5] In the afore-noticed circumstances, it would be just and expedient, if the petitioner is granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner shall put in appearance before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran. However, in the event of his arrest he shall on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tarn Taran be admitted to bail. April 1, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*