Crl.M.No.M-22414 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.M.No.M-22414 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:September 10, 2010 Sadhu Singh .....Petitioner v. The State of Punjab and another .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr.B.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. ...... RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) Crl.M.No.39832 of 2010 Application is allowed, as prayed for, subject to all just exceptions. Crl.M.No.M-22414 of 2010 The present petition filed under Section 438 Cr.P.C. is for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in criminal complaint No.48-1 dated 6.4.2005, under Sections 302,120-B,34 IPC, pending in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha, Annexure P1. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the whole record carefully. Brief allegations against petitioner-accused are that deceased Chhinda Singh is son of complainant Gurdev Singh. He was to appear as a witness against co-accused Balwant Singh, Ex-Sarpanch of the village in FIR No.87, dated 16.6.2002, P.S.Gidderbaha. He pressurized him that he should not depose against him, however, he refused. Petitioner-accused is of the party of said Sarpanch. On the day of occurrence, petitioner-accused visited the house of complainant and enquired about his son Chhinda Singh- deceased. When Chhinda Singh reached the house, complainant told him that Sahdu Singh was enquiring about him and hence Chhinda Singh had Crl.M.No.M-22414 of 2010 (O&M) -2- gone to house of Sadhu Singh, however, he did not return. After sometime, complainant and his other sons went to the house of present petitioner- accused and found that Chhinda Singh was lying in front of house of Sadhu Singh, petitioner. However, while he was taken to the hospital, he died on the way. As per post mortem report and as per report of Chemical Examiner, he died on account of poisoning. Initially FIR was lodged by the complainant against the petitioner-accused and two other co-accused, however, no action was taken by the police on the plea that complainant stated in the complaint that deceased died on account of strangulation and, however, as per post mortem report and Chemical Examiner Report, he died on account of poisoning. Protest petition has been filed by the complainant before the Magistrate against the closure report submitted by the police. Though the complainant stated in the FIR that his son was killed by three persons including present petitioner-accused by strangulation and however, on 6.4.2005 the complainant filed another complaint implicating two more person. Hence, in all five accused have been summoned to face trial for offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 120-B IPC by learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Gidderbaha, vide order dated 15.3.2008. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that co-accused Gurmeet Singh, Jagmeet Singh and Balwant Singh were already granted anticipatory bail by a Coordinate Bench of this Court, and that Balwant Singh is the main accused and hence case of present petitioner is on similar footing as of Balwant Singh. However, a careful perusal of the file shows that case of present petitioner is not similar to co-accused, who have been granted anticipatory bail by a coordinate Bench of this Court. Names of Jagmeet Singh and Gurmeet Singh were not mentioned in the FIR. Their names have come first time in the complaint. So far as co-accused Balwant Singh is concerned, though motive has been attributed to him, however, occurrence had taken place in the house of petitioner-accused. Deceased had gone to the house of petitioner-accused. Dead body was also found in front of the house of the petitioner-accused. As per complainant, all the accused including the present petitioner-accused and the deceased were kept sitting in the house of petitioner-accused. All were seen there by a witness. Hence, there are serious allegations against the petitioner- Crl.M.No.M-22414 of 2010 (O&M) -3- accused. It is not such a case in which extraordinary relief of anticipatory bail should be granted to the petitioner-accused. Hence, in view of these facts, and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition filed by petitioner- Sadhu Singh for grant of anticipatory bail is, hereby, dismissed being devoid of any merit. 10.9.2010 (Ram Chand Gupta) meenu Judge