CRM M-12431 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.22929 of 2009 in CRM M-12431 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.8.2009 Ravinder Singh and another ....Petitioners. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.S.S.Rangi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG Punjab for the State/respondent. Mr.Baldev Singh, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Daldeep Singh, Advocate for the complainant. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. The petitioners have applied for grant of anticipatory bail in case registered vide FIR No.126 dated 28.6.2008 under Sections 302, 201, 382 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The aforesaid FIR was registered by Tarsem Singh in which he had alleged that his son Amrinder Singh alias Midha has been killed by Satpal and Rajinder Singh alias Jindra. In the said case, Satpal (since deceased) made a statement on 2.7.2008 before the police as well as before JMIC that while he was fired at by Amrinder Singh alias Midha, Ravinder Singh alias Rubi (petitioner No.1) gave a Kirpan blow which landed on his left hand as a result of which, he received injuries on his finger adjoining his thumb. At that time, Maninder Singh alias Mintu (petitioner No.2) was CRM M-12431 of 2009 -2- also present there. Both the petitioners have been summoned on an application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. vide order dated 10.4.2009 (Annexure P-3) through warrants of arrest. The petitioners had thus, filed a petition for grant of anticipatory bail before the Court below which was dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib on 27.4.2009. Counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that there is no reference of the petitioners in the FIR registered by Tarsem Singh (Annexure P-1), neither in the statement (Annexure P-2) nor in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Satpal (deceased) has only referred to an injury caused with Kirpan by petitioner No.1 and the presence of petitioner No.2. He further submitted that no fatal injury has been caused by the petitioners who have already been granted interim bail by this Court and are appearing before the Court below regularly without there being any allegation of absence or tampering with evidence or misusing the concession of bail. As against this, counsel for the complainant has submitted that the petitioners have not challenged the order of summoning (Annexure P-3), therefore, the petitioners cannot find fault in the said order. Moreover, it is submitted by him that even in the enquiry report of DSP Amloh dated 4.8.2008 and SSP Fatehgarh Sahib dated 23.6.2008, it has been found that both the petitioners are involved in the occurrence. Counsel for the complainant has also highlighted that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as they have deliberately concealed the statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and gave a distorted version of the statement of Satpal (deceased) (Annexure P-2) which has been CRM M-12431 of 2009 -3- recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that in the original petition in Annexure P-2, the petitioners deliberately omitted to mention that “On this, Amrinder Singh alias Midha uttered “Salio tusi plot de kee lagde ho” and he exhorted his brother and his associates by raising lalkara.” It is further submitted that the petitioners have changed the eye witness because in the document Annexure P-2 it has been mentioned that “while firing Jagtar Singh, resident of Batan Lal Road, Mandi Gobindgarh by chance also came at the spot who saw the whole incident himself.” It is submitted by the counsel for the complainant that in fact the actual averments made by Satpal (deceased) are “at the spot Gagandeep Singh alias Rikki son of Jagtar Singh, resident of Batan Lal Road, Mandi Gobindgarh came present and saw the entire occurrence with his own eyes.” Further, it has been mentioned that in para 5 of the petition, the petitioners have made misleading averments because he has mentioned that “there was no evidence against the petitioners to connect them with the murder of Satpal except the solitary statement of Satpal himself.” In this regard, counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is not correct that there is no evidence except for the solitary statement of Satpal (deceased) because there are two eye witnesses, namely, Gagandeep Singh and Rajinder Singh @ Jindra, whose statements have already been recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. Counsel for the State has also argued that the petitioners have been summoned to face trial under Section 302 IPC. Learned State counsel has also argued that participation of the petitioners in the alleged occurrence is writ large in which two persons have been murdered. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the contentions CRM M-12431 of 2009 -4- raised by learned counsel for the parties and I am of the view that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands as they had obtained the interim orders on the basis of statement (Annexure P-2) which was totally distorted and that order under Section 319 Cr.P.C. has not been challenged so far. Moreover, keeping in view the gravity of the offence, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioners, therefore, the petition is hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 25.8.2009 JUDGE Meenu