In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. CRM M 12931 of 2009 Decided on July 13,2009. Amrit Pal Singh -- Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent Present: Mr. ADS Sukhija, Advocate,for the petitioner Mr.Ranbir Singh Rawat, AAG, Punjab. Rakesh Kumar Jain, J: This is a petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner in a case FIR No. 154 dated 24.10.2008, registered under Sections 302/307/120-B/34 IPC and Section 27/54/59 Arms Act, at Police Station, Jaiton, Faridkot. In brief, the allegations are that on 24.10.2008, at 6.30.p.m, Darshan Singh, Ex-Sarpanch and his son Amritpal Singh, came to the house of the complainant where Amritpal Singh gave a lalkara and Darshan Singh,his father fired from his licensed rifle and killed Gurlal Singh. He also fired at Sewak Singh, Parchawa Singh, Lakhwinder Singh alias Baggi, Sukhbir Singh, Sukhdeep Singh and Gurpiar Singh. Motive for the killing was stated to be Darshan Singh's illicit relation with the mother of Gursewak Singh to which Sewak Singh used to object. The petitioner was kept in column No.2 of the challan, however, after the statement of PW-1 Charanjit Singh was recorded, an application was filed by the prosecution vide which the petitioner was summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C. CRM M 12931 of 2009 -2- Apprehending his arrest due to the order passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C, the petitioner had filed anticipatory bail application before the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, which was dismissed on 30.4.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner was discharged from the custody after 85 days when he was found to be innocent. The summoning order has been passed under Section 319 Cr.P.C on the basis of statement of Charanjit Singh- PW-1 who is also author of the FIR. The statements made by the complainant at the time of registration of the FIR and in the Court are totally different as there are lot of improvement made later on. He further submitted that no injury has been attributed to the petitioner. Only lalkara has been attributed to the petitioner. But in the statement recorded by PW-1, it has been stated that the petitioner also gave a dang blow to Parchawa Singh and other injured also. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no corresponding medical evidence to support this assertion that the petitioner had caused injury to said Parchawa Singh and other injured. He further submitted that it is hard to believe that father and son would attack together in order to promote illicit relation of the father of the petitioner with the mother of the complainant. In the end, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11.5.2009, the petitioner has furnished bail bonds to the satisfaction of learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot and is on interim bail vide order dated 19.5.2009. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that there is specific role attributed to the petitioner in the statement of the complainant to the effect that he had given dang blow to Parchawa Singh and other CRM M 12931 of 2009 -3- injured. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that had the statement been made by some other witnesses, then the matter would have been different, but since the statement has been made by the author of the FIR, then it is definitely not to be believed. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that no serious offence has been attributed to the petitioner, but for Lalkara and a minor injury, if any. In view of the above, without commenting on the merit of the case, this petition is allowed and the order dated 11.5.2009 is made absolute. July 13,2009 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge