Crl. Misc. No. M-20600 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : Crl. Misc. No. M-20600 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : October 23, 2009 Mohan Lal and another .... Petitioners Vs. State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. S. P. S. Sidhu, Advocate and Mr. C. M. Munjal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab for respondent no. 1. Ms. Puja Chopra, Advocate for the complainant – respondent no.2. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : Crl. Misc. No. 49828 of 2009 : Application is allowed and Annexures P-5 to P-9 are taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Main Case : By this common order, I am disposing of two petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-20600 of 2009 filed by Mohan Lal and Kharait Lal and Crl. Misc. No. M-21081 of 2009 filed by Surinder Kumar and Surjan Crl. Misc. No. M-20600 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Singh – all seeking bail in criminal complaint No.12 instituted by respondent no.2 Chhindo Rani under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (in short – IPC) pending before Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case files. According to the prosecution version, complainant Chhindo Rani was Sarpanch of Village Panchayat at the relevant time. After demarcation of Panchayat land, possession of land encroached upon by petitioner Mohan Lal was taken by Panchayat with the help of villagers. All the four petitioners threatened the complainant party. On 29.02.2004, complainant's husband Kala Singh left his village for going to another village. However, he did not return. On 01.03.2004 i.e. on the next day, at about 09:00 A.M., it was learnt that Kala Singh had been murdered and his dead body was lying in the ditches between canal and road. The complainant along with some other persons went there. Meanwhile, Chhinda Singh told that on 29.02.2004, at about 06-07:00 P.M., he had seen all the petitioners going in a car trying to hit Kala Singh and they struck their car with the scooter of Kala Singh 2-3 times, but Kala Singh escaped and from some distance, Chhinda Singh heard screams of Kala Singh, but due to fear, he went home. The complainant lodged FIR (Annexure P-5) stating this version. Thereafter, in the evening, one Pritam Singh told the complainant that he had seen all the four petitioners murdering Kala Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that the FIR lodged by the complainant was investigated and `untraced report' was submitted by the police. It was also contended that Chhinda Singh – alleged eye-witness has not been examined by the complainant in preliminary evidence in the impugned criminal complaint. The aforesaid contentions do not entitle the petitioners to Crl. Misc. No. M-20600 of 2009 (O&M) 3 anticipatory bail in a murder case. FIR was lodged promptly naming all the four petitioners as accused. Same version has been reiterated in the impugned criminal complaint. However, in the complaint, additional fact, which came to notice after lodging of FIR, has been mentioned that Pritam Singh had witnessed the occurrence. Chhinda Singh was in fact not eye- witness of the actual murder, although he had allegedly seen the petitioners hitting their car with the scooter of the deceased 2-3 times and thereafter, from some distance, Chhinda Singh had only heard screams of the deceased. Pritam Singh has, however, supported the complainant's version in the witness-box. In view of the aforesaid, without meaning to comment anything on merits, the petitioners do not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail, since they are alleged to have committed the murder of complainant's husband. Learned counsel for the petitioners cited a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maninder Kaur and others vs. Teja Singh – reported as 2000(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 768. That was a case against order of High Court, whereby the bail granted to the accused had been cancelled by the High Court. Obviously, this judgment has no bearing on the instant case. In view of the aforesaid, but without meaning to comment anything on merits, both petitions i.e. Crl. Misc. No. M-20600 of 2009 filed by Mohan Lal and Kharait Lal and Crl. Misc. No. M-21081 of 2009 filed by Surinder Kumar and Surjan Singh – are dismissed. October 23, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE