Crl. Misc. No.M-30651of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-30651of 2010 Date of decision: 28.10.2010 Rajwinder Singh @ Rajveer Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others .. Respondents Present:- Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.A.P.S. Mann, Addl.A.G., Punjab. Mr.K.S.Dhanora, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 22.06.2010 for the offences under Sections 452, 307, 506, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Section 25 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Jodhan, District Ludhiana. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Gurjeet Singh. It is alleged by the complainant that he has one son namely Gurpreet Singh who along with other boys of the village daily goes to the village stadium in the evening for doing exercise. On 21.06.2010 also Gurpreet Singh had gone to the stadium for doing exercise. At about 8.00 p.m., he came back and informed his father-Gurjit Singh (complainant) that at the stadium Rajwinder Singh (petitioner) and other boys had entered into a minor altercation with him and they had abused him. When they did not stop, he said that he was going to inform Crl. Misc. No.M-30651of 2010 ::2:: his father. The complainant told his son that they should not enter into a quarrel and would discuss the matter in the Panchayat. At about 10.30 p.m. in the night, the complainant and his wife's sister's husband (Sadu) namely Rachhpal Singh and the complainant's son Gurpreet Singh and his friend Amritpal Singh (respondent No.3) were talking to each other. Then, they heard a noise of abuses of being hurled. In the meantime, Rajwinder Singh (petitioner), Jagwant Singh, Harry and Paramjit Singh along with 4-5 other boys entered the complainant's house by breaking the bolt of the gate and started abusing. In the meanwhile, the petitioner and Jagwant Singh who had .12 bore guns with them in their hands, fired shots towards the complainant side with an intention to kill them. The complainant and others rushed into their house to save themselves. The pellet from the shot fired at the complainant from the gun held by Rajwinder Singh (petitioner) hit on the left side of the chest of Amritpal Singh (respondent No.3). Then, the complainant and others in order to save themselves raised an alarm of 'Bachao Bachao'. The assailsants thereafter along with their respective weapons went away in the vehicle. Due to pellets being hit on the chest of Amritpal, he felt a pain and was got admitted in the Pakhowal hospital for getting treatment. The statement of the complainant was recorded and it was requested that the matter be investigated. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner and accepted by learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 that the matter has been compromised. It has been decided in terms of the compromise (Annexure P-2) that neither of the parties would take legal action against each other and the parties would be bound by the compromise. Learned counsel for the petitioner, relies on the case of Ajay Pal Singh and ors. versus State of Punjab, 1988(1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 359 (P & H) to contend that where the matter has been Crl. Misc. No.M-30651of 2010 ::3:: compromised between the parties, the petitioner would be entitled to anticipatory bail even in respect of offences under Sections 307, 452, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that he has no knowledge of the said compromise (Annexure P-2) and neither has the same been submitted with the Police. In any case, it is submitted that the Police is to investigate the case for which the custody of the petitioner is required. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the allegations against the petitioner are that he fired from his 12 bore gun at the complainant and the pellets from the gun that was fired hit Amritpal Singh (respondent No.3). The medical examination report of Amritpal Singh (Annexure P-6) has been placed on record and a perusal of the same shows that Amritpal Singh suffered an injury on his chest. It has been mentioned as a rounded inverted wound on the chest 6” below the shoulder joint and 2½” above the right nipple and on lateral side 1½” on the lateral side the margins of the wound were clear shape and rounded, .5 cm diameter and .5 cm deep iniverted reddish in colour. Area around the nipple was also reddish. X-ray was advised. The present is a case where the petitioner along with others had gone to the house of the complainant duly armed and fired with his .12 bore gun. In Ajay Pal Singh's case (supra) referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the anticipatory bail was allowed as the matter had been compromised. However, the nature of injury and the role of assailants was not adverted to. Therefore, the said case cannot be said to be laying down any ratio insofar as grant of pre-arrest bail on the basis of compromise is concerned. It may be noticed that present is a case for the offence under Section 307 IPC. In Manoj Sharma versus State & Ors., 2008(4) RCR (Criminal) 827, it was observed by the Supreme Court Crl. Misc. No.M-30651of 2010 ::4:: that there can be no doubt that a case under Section 302 IPC or other serious offences like those under Sections 307 or 304-B IPC cannot be compounded and, hence, the proceedings in those cases cannot be entertained by the High Court in exercise of its power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or in writ jurisdiction on the basis of compromise. The observantions made therein would apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case where the petitioner had gone armed with a .12 bore gun and fired on the chest of Amritpal Singh and caused injuries to him in the house of the complainant. Even otherwise, the matter is required to be investigated by the Police to ascertain the role of the other accused who may be involved. The Police in fact is under an obligation to investigate the commission of cognizable offences and bring the culprits to book. Besides, it is under an obligation to maintain and enforce law and order. Therefore, keeping in view the role and nature of the injuries attributed to the petitioner, there is no ground for the grant of pre- arrest bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE October 28, 2010 sukhpreet