CRM M-12623 of 2009 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-12623 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.8.2009 Lajpat Rai alias Lala ....Petitioner. Vs. State of Punjab ..Respondent. CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Pawan Girdhar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.AG Punjab for the State/respondent. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. By this common order, I shall be disposing of two petitions, namely, CRM M-12623 of 2009 titled as Lajpat Rai alias Lala Vs. State of Punjab and CRM M-15144 of 2009 titled as Harmesh Singh Vs. State of Punjab in which the petitioners have applied for grant of regular bail in case registered vide FIR No.126 dated 28.6.2008 under Sections 302, 447 IPC and 25/27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Mandi Gobindgarh, District Fatehgarh Sahib. Since similar arguments have been raised by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as counsel for the State of Punjab, therefore, the aforesaid two petitions are being taken up together. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the statement of Tarsem Singh, who had stated that he deals in iron. He had three sons. His Mill – H.M.Steel Corporation situated behind Cheema Petrol Pump, Mandi Gobindgarh is lying closed. He had a dispute regarding plot of this mill with Rajinder Singh alias Jindra, which is pending in the Court at Amloh. He is in possession of the plot. On 27.6.2008, he came to know that Rajinder CRM M-12623 of 2009 (O&M) -2- Singh alias Jindra wanted to take possession of the aforesaid plot. He along with his son Amrinder Singh alias Midha (since deceased), Lovepreet Pal Singh, Beant Singh alias Antee, Sher Singh alias Sheru reached at the aforesaid plot in their Indica Car No.PB-48-C-5500 at about 11 p.m. The main gate of the plot was broken and bricks were stacked in order to take possession and Rajinder Singh alias Jindra, Satpal, Rana, Lajpat Rai alias Lala, Yoginder Pal Joshi, Jugal Kishore and some other persons including labour were trying to take possession of the plot. It is further alleged that when the complainant tried to stop the aforesaid accused, at that time, Rajinder Singh alias Jindra and Satpal (since deceased) raised a Lalkara that it was their plot. This led to mutual exchange of abuses. Jugal Kishore caught hold of the complainant from collar and started giving him slaps. Rana took to scuffling with Beant Singh alias Antee. Lajpat Rai alias Lala scuffled with Sher Singh alias Sheru, Yoginder Pal Joshi started throwing bricks towards complainant party. In the meantime, Satpal and Rajinder Singh alias Jindra took out pistol and started firing towards his son Amrinder Singh alias Midha with an intention to kill him. In the said firing, one shot hit his son Amrinder Singh alias Midha on the left side of his chest and one shot hit the abdomen. Amrinder Singh alias Midha also fired a shot which hit Satpal, thereafter, they took the injured Amrinder Singh alias Midha to Hospital for treatment. Criminal Petition No.M-12623 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of petitioner Lajpat Rai whereas Criminal Petition No.M-15144 of 2009 has been filed on behalf of petitioner Harmesh Singh. Mr.R.S.Cheema, learned Sr.counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner Lajpat Rai in CRM M-12623 of 2009 has argued that police has CRM M-12623 of 2009 (O&M) -3- recorded the statements of Lovepreet Pal Singh, Beant Singh alias Antee and Sher Singh alias Sheru under Section 161 Cr.P.C. He further submits that statement of Amrinder Singh alias Midha has been recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. on 2.7.2008 in which he does not mention the name of the present petitioner. He further submits that only role attributed to the petitioner is that he scuffled with Sher Singh alias Sheru and has caused no injury. He further submits that the petitioner is in custody since 7.7.2008. Mr.A.D.S.Sukhija, learned counsel for the petitioner Harmesh Singh in CRM M-15144 of 2009 adopts the argument of Mr.R.S.Cheema, Sr.Advocate. He submitted that allegation against the petitioner is that he had scuffled with Beant Singh alias Antee. Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, learned counsel for the State, however, has argued that there are three eye witnesses who are yet to be examined. He further submitted that in the statement of Satpal (since deceased) recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C., he has referred to those persons who had in fact caused injuries and that the participation of both the accused is there in the alleged crime. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that it is a case of double murder in which there is certainly a participation of both the petitioners in the commission of crime. Without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I do not find it to be a fit case for grant of regular bail to the petitioners Lajpat Rai and Harmesh Singh, therefore, both the petitions are hereby dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) 25.8.2009 JUDGE Meenu