CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.4669 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: DECEMBER 19, 2011 Gurpreet Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab ....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. S. Hundal, Sr.Advocate with Mr. R. S. Sidhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in Crl.Misc. M No.4669 of 2011) Mr. Preetinder S. Ahluwalia, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in Crl.Misc. M No.13291 of 2011) Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. (in Crl. Misc. M No.17274 of 2011) Mr. A.P.S.Deol, Sr.Advocate with Mr. Vishal Rattan Lamba, Advocate, for the petitioner. (In Crl.Misc. M No.18030 of 2011) Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, DAG, Punjab, for the State. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Since petitions bearing Criminal Misc. M Nos.4669 CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.4669 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: of 2011 (Gurpreet Singh Vs. State of Punjab), 13291 of 2011 (Tejinder Singh @ Teji Vs. State of Punjab) and 17274 of 2011 (Amrinder Singh @ Dipi Vs. State of Punjab) have been filed for grant of bail in same FIR, these are decided by this common order. CRL. MISC. M NO.4669 OF 2011 Mr.Hundal, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, has taken me through the FIR in this case. As per the allegation made in the FIR, which is recorded at the instance of Uncle of the deceased, he alongwith his nephew Avtar Singh was travelling in a bus as Avtar Singh was going to attend his tuition. The bus was statedly over loaded. The complainant was in the middle of the bus whereas his nephew, Avtar Singh was standing near the rear door. Time was at about 10.30 a.m., when the bus stopped on the minor bridge Bhadson Road on the outskirts of Patiala to drop passengers. It is at that time that 5/6 unidentified persons came near the rear door of the bus. They forcibly pulled Avtar Singh from the bus by catching him from arms. In the meantime, one person having something with sharp edges, hit Avtar Singh on his private parts. Another person took an empty bottle of Soda water from a Tea Vendor, who was selling tea on a `Rehri' . He broke the bottle from its bottom and gave a blow with the broken bottle on the back of Avtar Singh. The complainant made an attempt to get out CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.4669 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: of the bus in hurry but these persons gave more blows to Avtar Singh with their weapons by making Avtar Singh to pin him down on the road. When the Public raised alarm, these persons left the place. In the manner in which FIR has been registered, obviously the complainant would not have been in a position to identify the persons who had caused these injuries to Avtar Singh. The complainant has been truthful in lodging the FIR without naming any one. Counsel for the petitioner submits that incident took place on 6.7.2010. It is after 13 days that statement of driver of the bus was recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., where he has stated that at the time of incident the present petitioner had told him not to start the bus. The counsel has also raised serious legal objection in regard to the manner of holding the identification parade. As per the counsel, it is no identification parade in the eyes of law. Accordingly, the counsel contends that there is no role attributed to the petitioner except that he had told the driver not to start the bus which came on record subsequently after 13 days of the incident. The counsel contends that the petitioner can not be kept in custody for all times to come for such allegations. The petitioner is in custody for the last 17 months. Only one witness has been examined. Second witness, who has to give eye witness account, is in the process of giving his evidence. Driver is yet to be examined. If the petitioner CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.4669 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: had told the driver not to start the bus, obviously he was part of plan and a conspirator with them in causing the death. His role has to be seen by the Trial Court. He appears to be involved in the conspiracy to kill Avtar Singh. The offence alleged and the manner in which this murder is alleged to have been committed is shocking. It must have sent shock waves to those present. Society at large would have serious grievance against such gruesome murder. It will not be appropriate to release the petitioner on bail at this stage. This petition for bail is, therefore, dismissed. CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.13291 OF 2011 Petitioner, Tehinder Singh @ Teji, has prayed for grant of regular bail in the same case in above noted FIR. The facts have been noticed above. The main ground for seeking concession of bail is that the petitioner is not named by eye witnesses. As per the counsel, a crude attempt has been made subsequently to attribute role to the petitioner by saying that all other persons present had caught hold of Avtar Singh and gave him kick and fist blows. State counsel points out that petitioner, Tehinder Singh @ Teji, was having an affair with the girl, to whom late Avtar Singh allegedly used to tease. It is because of the petitioner that all the persons had come and have caused CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.4669 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: his murder. The petitioner appears to be the kingpin. He, therefore, does not deserve the concession of bail. Dismissed. CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.17274 OF 2011 The petitioner is also an accused in the same FIR. The facts have already been noticed above. Petitioner, Amrinder Singh @ Dipi is one of the accused. He has now moved this application seeking bail on the ground that he is not named in the FIR. As per the counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is sought to be implicated in this case on the basis of an extra- judicial confession made by a co-accused before Gurcharan Singh. As per this statement, petitioner had allegedly carried a `chhura' and a rod from his home and gave `chhura' to Paramjit Singh @ Kala while keeping the rod with him. It is also alleged that during this time, Tejinder Singh @ Teji and Gurneet Singh son of Sikander Singh of the village of the witness came on Motorcycle No.PB-11-AD-8335 of Tejinder Singh to the place of incident. As noticed above, the genesis of the incident is that Avtar Singh used to teas a girl, who was allegedly having a love affair with Tejinder Singh @ Teji. It is on this count that Avtar Singh was attacked and done to death. Counsel for the petitioner contends that there is no direct evidence except this extra-judicial confession made by a co-accused. No test identification parade was held. Identification of the accused was got done while they were in police custody and this would be of no worth as per law. The petitioner further submits that no injury was found corresponding to the role attributed to the petitioner. The CRIMINAL MISC. M NO.4669 OF 2011 :{ 6 }: offence was allegedly committed after due planning. Since the witnesses did not know the accused persons, naming them or attributing specific roles to them could not be expected in the FIR. A specific role is attributed to the petitioner, may be by way of extra- judicial confession. It is a circumstance, though may be a weak type of evidence. Worth of the evidence would be seen by Trial Court. Minute appreciation of evidence at this stage for grant of bail is not called for. Not a fit case for grant of bail. Dismissed. Any opinion or view expressed by this Court is for the purpose of considering the plea for bail and be not construed any opinion on the merits of the case or of the evidence. December 19, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE