In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.42951 of 2010 and Criminal Misc. No.M-18978 of 2010 ..... Date of decision:19.8.2010 Surjit Singh alias Kala .....Petitioner v. State of Punjab .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Baldev S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. Cr. Misc. No.42951 of 2010: Copy of the relevant translated extract of challan form attached with the criminal miscellaneous is taken on record subject to just exceptions. The criminal miscellaneous stands disposed of. Cr. Misc. No.M-18978 of 2010: Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 302, 336, 148, 149 and 120-B IPC besides, Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Gursahib Singh. It is alleged by the complainant-Gursahib Singh that on 18.7.2008 there was turn of canal water for their land near the bus stand to Village Usman Khera. On 17.7.2008 at about 7.00 p.m., the complainant along with his father Ranjit Singh, uncle Hazur Singh and uncle Gurlal Singh; besides, Cr. Misc. No.M-18978 of 2010 [2] Gagandeep Singh and his relative Gurmail Singh and Gurlal Singh son of Malha Singh had come to their house. They all came to their land near bus stand Usman Khera for erecting the `Bandh'. When they reached there, they saw that in their field 15-20 persons were erecting a tent in which Jagsir Singh, Balbir Singh, Jaswinder Singh alias Chhinda, Gurdial Singh, Kala Singh alias Surjit Singh (petitioner), Meena Singh alias Manjit Singh, Sukhwant Singh alias Tanti, Dara Singh and his brother Mahinder Singh alias MP, who usually come to their village in the house of Balbir Singh and Manjit Singh alias Meena resident of Siagamal, and they were, therefore, known to the complainant were present along with contract labourers of Dara Singh and 6-7 other unknown persons, whom the complainant could recognize on seeing them if they were brought in front of him. The father of the complainant, namely, Ranjit Singh asked Dara Singh by naming him as to why he was erecting a tent there. Then Dara Singh said that they had purchased the land and they were to occupy it. If Ranjit Singh, the father of the complainant wanted his welfare, then he should run away. Then Hazur Singh-uncle of the complainant said that they were cultivating this land since 40 years and were in possession. They had filed a case in the Court and the stay order of the Court was in their favour. On hearing this, Dara Singh said that catch hold of them and not allow them to go alive. In the meantime, the said persons encircled the complainant and caused injuries. Surjit Singh alias Kala (petitioner), it is alleged, held a handle of a spade and one unknown person who had a Dang started giving blows to the uncle of the complainant who had fallen. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the role Cr. Misc. No.M-18978 of 2010 [3] attributed to the petitioner is that he caused injuries on the person of Hazur Singh, however, in the charge-report (challan) that was filed under Section 173 Cr.P.C. it was found that the petitioner had not participated at the time of murder and he was a witness to the sale deed which had been executed in favour of the assailants. Besides, it is submitted that the petitioner is a Member Panchayat at that time and, therefore, he had signed as a witness to the sale deed. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that in the incident that occurred on 17.7.2008, three persons were murdered. The accused along with others had formed an unlawful assembly of 18 persons all of whom were armed. The trial in the case is going on and the role attributed to the petitioner is to be considered and gone into by the trial Court after evidence has been led. The petitioner is named as one of the accused who was holding a handle of a spade and had caused injuries on the person of Hazur Singh (deceased) while he had fallen down. The question regarding the investigation carried out and that the petitioner is said to have not participated at the time of murder is also to be considered by the trial Court after evidence has been concluded. Keeping in view the number of deaths in the incident and also the fact that the petitioner is named as one of the accused and is attributed an injury on the person of deceased Hazur Singh, no ground for grant of regular bail is made out at this stage. The criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. August 19, 2010. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*