Crl. Misc. No. M-3755 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Date of Decision: November 14, 2011 1. Crl. Misc. No. M-3755 of 2011 Manpreet Singh @ Reeta …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent 2. Crl. Misc. No. M-23767 of 2011 Rupinder Singh …..Petitioner Vs. State of Punjab …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. D.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-3755 of 2011. Mr.Sunil Chadha, Advocate for the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No. M-23767 of 2011 Mr. Kirat Singh Sidhu, DAG, Punjab. -.- Crl. Misc. No. M-3755 of 2011 [2] M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) This order will dispose of two petitions bearing Crl. Misc. Nos.M-3755 and M-23767 of 2011 in a case registered at the instance of Narinderpal Singh alleging that Jagdeep Singh, grand-son of Sher Singh (uncle of his wife), had a quarrel with the son of complainant Harjinder Singh and one year prior to the date of occurrence in the month of March, non-petitioner Jagdeep Singh @ Jassi and Lalli, son of Major Singh and other three unidentified persons had given serious injuries to the son of complainant Harjinder Singh regarding which an FIR has been lodged in Police Station, Samrala. Son of complainant Harjinder Singh while in his jeep at the gate of the house of the complainant was attacked by three young persons who came on motorcycle from Samrala side. Jagdeep Singh was one of them. The motorcycle was stopped near the jeep and Jagdeep Singh raised a lalkara for teaching a lesson to Harjinder Singh for living in their village in the house of his material grand parents and fired at Harjinder Singh from his pistol on the right side of the head of Harjinder Singh. Brother of the complainant Surinder Singh raised an alarm, therefore, the said three persons fled away from the spot on motorcycle. Counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the petitioners are not named in the FIR and that they have been in custody w.e.f. December 2, 2009. The eye-witness PW Narinderpal Singh, complainant, father of the deceased has already appeared as an eye-witness on July 8, 2011 and he has been cross-examined on November 2, 2011. The said eye- witness has specifically attributed gun shot injury to non-petitioner Jagdeep Crl. Misc. No. M-3755 of 2011 [3] Singh. It is claimed by counsel for the petitioners that said Jagdeep Singh on account of his relationship with sitting MLA has been able to get himself declared innocent and that proceedings under Section 319 Cr.P.C., on the basis of the statement of the eye-witness, have been filed which is sub- judice. On asking of the Court, statement of Narinderpal Singh, PW made in the Court alongwith his cross-examination has been made available. A perusal of the statement indicates that the gun shot has been attributed to Jagdeep Singh and it has been clarified that the petitioners accompanied Jagdeep Singh at the time of the occurrence. The petitioners have been in custody w.e.f. December 2, 2009. Period of about 1 year and 11 months has already elapsed. For the reasons best known to the prosecution agency, contrary to the claim of the complainant, the main accused who fired shot at the deceased as per the statement of complainant, has been left out as an accused. It appears that Mohit Kumar was substituted for the main accused. Mohit Kumar has been granted the concession of bail. Presuming that the version given by the complainant is correct, in view of the period of detention suffered by the petitioners, they can be granted the concession of bail as they have not been attributed any specific injury on the person of the deceased. The statement of complainant has already been recorded. In said circumstances, the petitioners can be granted the concession of bail. Petitions are allowed. Petitioners are ordered to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds for a sum of ` 1 lac with one surety of the Crl. Misc. No. M-3755 of 2011 [4] like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court subject to an additional conditions that in case any attempt is made by the petitioners to tamper with the evidence, in any manner, it will be open to the complainant or the prosecution agency to seek the cancellation of the bail. November 14, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE