Crl. Misc. No.M-3111 of 2011 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-3111 of 2011 Date of decision: 10.02.2011 Surjit Singh and others .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Bawa, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.V.P.S. Sidhu, AA.G., Punjab. Mr.D.S. Malwai, Advocate, for the complainant. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered against them on 16.08.2010 for the offences under Sections 452, 324, 323, 447, 511, 506, 148 and 149 IPC; besides, Section 307 IPC which was added later at Police Station Sherpur, District Sangrur. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that Kurshed (petitioner No.4) has since been arrested, therefore, the present petition has been rendered infructuous insofar as petitioner No.-4-Kurshed is concerned and the present petition survives qua the other petitioners. The complainant Gurjant Singh has alleged that about two and a half months earlier to the registration of FIR which was registered on 16.08.2010, his father namely Gurdev Singh sold 13 biswas of land to Maghar Singh and 4 biswas of land to Hassan Mohammad. After demarcation of the land, the purchasers had constructed a boundary wall. Maghar Singh had constructed a gate on the road side and had temporarily Crl. Misc. No.M-3111 of 2011 ::2:: closed it. On the date of the incident i.e. 15.08.2010, in the morning Gamdoor Singh son of Maghar Singh was opening the temporary gate by pulling out the bricks so that the machine for installing a tubewell bore could pass through. At that time Surjit Singh @ Seeta Fauzi (petitioner No.1) whose wall of the house adjoins the land came there. Gurdev singh, father of the complainant-Gurjant Singh was also present there at that time. Surjit Singh (petitioner No.1) on reaching there started abusing Gamdoor Singh son of Maghar singh; besides, restrained him from removing the gate. He said that he would see them on that day itself. In the meantime, from the house of Surjit Singh (petitioner No.1); Devinder Singh (non- petitioner) and Sher Singh (petitioner No.3) sons of Sarbans Singh and his wife as also Kesar Khan son of Ramjan Khan came out. They demolished the wall which adjoins the land of Maghar Singh. After demolishing the gate and the wall, they opened the gate towards the side of Maghar Singh. On hearing the noise the complainant-Gurjant Singh along with his brother Jagjit Singh @ Jagga as also Suleman Khan son of Pillo Khan and Amritpal Singh son of the complainant-Gurjant Singh also ran towards that place. Within their sight, Devinder Singh (non-petitioner) and Surjit Singh (petitioner No.1) brought 'kirpans' from the house of Surjit Singh. Sher Singh (petitioner No.3) and wife of Surjit Singh (petitioner 1) brought 'dangs' while Kesar Khan was already holding an iron 'sabbal' (crowbar) for demolishing the wall. Surjit Singh (petitioner No.1) immediately on reaching the place inflicted a 'kirpan' blow on the head of Gurdev Singh, father of the complainant. Sher Singh (petitioner No.3) gave a dang blow to Gurdev Singh on his right arm near the elbow and Devinder Singh (non- petitioner) gave a kirpan blow which hit on the fingers of right hand of Gurdev Singh, father of the complainant. Kesar Khan who was carrying 'sabbal' in his hand gave a blow on the left arm and Surjit Singh (petitioner Crl. Misc. No.M-3111 of 2011 ::3:: No.1) gave another blow of kirpan on the left hand of Gurdev Singh which hit on the finger adjoining the thumb. Wife of Surjit Singh (petitioner No.1) gave a dang blow on the left shoulder of Gurdev Singh. In the meantime, Kurshed Begum (petitioner No.4) wife of Aslam Khan and Gurmit wife of Ruldu Khan also reached at the spot and caused injuries on the head and left ear of the complainant's father. The police had initially registered a case for lesser offences, but later the offence under Section 307 IPC was added. It is not disputed that the injury which has been attributed to Surjit Singh (petitioner No.1) are such which fall under Section 324 IPC, which is bailable. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Devinder Singh (non-petitioner) has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 04.01.2011. A perusal of the order passed therein shows that learned counsel for the petitioner-Devinder Singh had referred to various photographs to contend that the cattle of Devinder Singh had been killed and his dairy farm had been vandalized and destroyed; besides, his house was ransacked. The said petitioner- Devinder Singh had suffered a loss. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of injury and the loss suffered by the petitioner as also the fact the co-accused of the petitioners namely Devinder Singh has been granted the concession of pre-arrest bail, it would be just and expedient to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioners. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition qua petitioner Nos. 1 to 3 is allowed and petitioners No.1 to 3, in the event of their arrest, shall be admitted to bail on furnishing their personal bonds and surety each to the satisfaction of the Arresting/Investigating Officer. The petitioners shall join investigation as and when called and shall abide by Crl. Misc. No.M-3111 of 2011 ::4:: the conditions of Section 438(2) Cr.P.C. The petition qua petitioner No.4 is dismissed being infructuous. (S.S. SARON) February 10, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet