IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-30747 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.12.2009 Baljinder Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. **** S.S. SARON, J. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 307, 332, 353, 186, 148/149 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984 (“Act” – for short). The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of memo received from Sub-Inspector Willium Jeji, SHO, Police Station City Sangrur. On 4.6.2009, the Sub-Inspector was present at Police Station, Sangrur along with force to maintain law and order. Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, PPS, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Sangrur was also present. At about 9.00 p.m. a mob of about 150-200 persons armed with weapons and brick-bats came from the side of main bazaar (sadar bazaar) Crl. Misc. No. M-30747 of 2009 [2] under the leadership of Manna, Ex-Sarpanch of village Mangwal along with others. Manna, Ex-Sarpanch raised a lalkara not to leave the police personnel alive on that day and they were to take revenge for the death of Kaka. The persons who had assembled were warned by Sh. Kuldeep Sharma, DSP, Sub-Division, Sangrur through a loud-speaker fitted on his vehicle. However, some persons from the gathering pelted stones and brick- bats at the police station. Warnings were again given. Thereafter, Lakha with an intention to kill DSP Kuldeep Sharma attacked him with a ‘dang’ and the blow inflicted by him hit on the head of DSP Kuldeep Sharma and he fell down. The mob further became unruly. DSP Kuldeep Sharma was taken to Government Hospital, Sangrur in an injured condition. The act of the persons leading the mob to attack at the police station, it was held, makes out the offences as mentioned above. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has no concern whatsoever with the FIR. He has not committed any offence as mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner is also not connected with any person mentioned in the FIR. It is also submitted that Vijay Kumar who is similarly situated has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 5.11.2009 in Crl. Misc. No. M-23948 of 2009. In response, learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The petitioner in fact is involved in committing serious offences and therefore, he is not entitled to the concession of bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is in custody and the trial in the case is likely to take time. The petitioner is not named as an accused in the FIR. Besides, Crl. Misc. No. M-30747 of 2009 [3] Vijay Kumar who is somewhat similarly placed as the petitioner has been granted the concession of bail vide order dated 5.11.2009 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-23948 of 2009. The custody of the petitioner is not required for the purposes of investigation. It is to be ascertained whether petitioner is one of the persons who has committed the offence under Section 307 IPC. Section 3(1) of the Act relates to mischief causing damage to public property and Section 4 thereof relates to mischief causing damage to public property by fire or explosive substance. In terms of Section 3(1) of the Act whoever commits mischief by doing any act in respect of any public property, other than public property of the nature referred to in sub-section (2), he shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years and with fine. Section 3(2) relates to creating mischief of certain category of public property providing public services and the punishment of imprisonment in such cases is not to be less than six months but which may extend to five years and with fine. In terms of Section 4 whoever commits an offence under sub-section (1) or sub-section (2) of Section 3 by fire or explosive substance is liable for punishment with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than one year but which may extend to ten years with fine. Provided that the Court may, for special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, award a sentence of imprisonment for a terms of less than one year. As already noticed, it is to be established during trial whether petitioner was part of the mob that had attacked the Police Station. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Crl. Misc. No. M-30747 of 2009 [4] Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sangrur shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE 18.12.2009 amit