Crl.Misc.No.M-35654 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-16.9.2010 Gurlal Singh son of Teja Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.H.S.Rakhra, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Shilesh Gupta, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr.S.S.Sidhu, Advocate for the complainant. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) Having exercised his right of regular bail and lost in the Court of Session, petitioner Gurlal Singh son of Teja Singh, has directed the present petition for regular bail in the present case, invoking the provisions of section 439 Cr.PC. 2. Concisely, the prosecution claimed that on 5.1.2008 at about 7.30 P.M., complainant Lakhvir Singh son of Baldev Singh and his brother Satvir Singh were going on their motorcycle. As soon as, they reached near the shop of Kaka Ram son of Dalip Singh and Satvir Singh brother of the complainant was about to go inside the shop, after parking the motorcycle, in the meantime, the accused came there. The complainant was urinating on one side. After hearing the noise, the complainant turned towards the place of occurrence and noticed that petitioner- accused Gurlal Singh son of Teja Singh, was firing bullet shots from his revolver, which hit his brother Satvir Singh. The remaining accused Maha Singh and Sikander Singh were giving fists and leg blows to Satvir Singh. In the wake of noise raised by the complainant, the accused fled away from the place of Crl.Misc.No.M-35654 of 2009 2 occurrence by raising lalkaras. Injured Satvir Singh succumbed to his injuries. 3. Levelling a variety of allegations, in all, according to the prosecution, the main accused-petitioner Gurlal Singh, fired bullet shots from his revolver, which hit Satvir Singh, resulting into his death, while the other co-accused gave fists and leg blows to him. On the basis of aforesaid allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant Lakhvir Singh, the present case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.5 dated 5.1.2008 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offence punishable under section 302 read with section 34 IPC and sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, by the police of Police Station Dialpura, District Bathinda. 4. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. 5. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after bestowal of thoughts over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be dismissed in this context. 6. Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that the co-accused of the present petitioner were found innocent by the police and since there is a contradiction in the ocular as well as medical evidence, so, he (petitioner) is entitled to regular bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well. 7. As is evident from the record that there are direct allegations against the petitioner that he is the main culprit, who has fired the bullet shots from his revolver, which hit Satvir Singh culminating into his death. The occurrence was witnessed by complainant Lakhvir Singh. Whether the petitioner was falsely implicated in this case, what would be the effect of alleged contradiction between the ocular and medical evidence or the recovery of bullets from the spot, vide separate recovery memo and the report of Forensic Science Laboratory, would be the moot points, to be decided by the trial Court after appreciating the evidence brought on record by the parties during the course of trial. Be that as it may, but in Crl.Misc.No.M-35654 of 2009 3 any case, taking into consideration the direct involvement and specific role assigned to the petitioner that he committed the murder of Satvir Singh by firing shots from his revolver, to me, he is not entitled to regular bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case. 8. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of the case, the present petition for regular bail is hereby dismissed. Needless to say that nothing recorded herein above would reflect on the merits of the case, in any manner, as the same has been so observed for a limited purpose of deciding the instant petition. 16.9.2010 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) AS Judge