IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc 13626 of 2009 and Criminal Misc M-5961 of 2009 Date of decision: 18.3.2009 Santokh Singh @ Panchhi Ram …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …Respondent Present: Mr Sanjay Tangri, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr Sudhir Nehra, Addl AG Punajb. S.S.SARON, J. Cr Misc 13626 of 2009 The translated copy of the FIR (P3) attached with this application, is taken on record, subject to just exceptions. This application stands disposed of. Cr Misc 5961 of 2009 Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered against him on 27.4.2007 for the offences under Sections 323, 324, 34 IPC and later the offence under Section 326 IPC also having been added. The FIR has been registered on the statement of Harmesh Lal. It has been alleged by the complainant that he does a job of Palledar at Phillaur Mandi. On 23.4.2007 at about 9.30 p.m. he was sitting at his house after having his meals. He had come back form his job. His brother – Cr Misc 13626 of 2009 and Cr Misc M-5961 of 2009 2 Naula son of Sohan Lal and his son – Varinder Kumar were standing in the street in front of his house. They were talking amongst themselves. Kanshi Ram (non-petitioner) and Panchhi Ram (Santokh Singh – petitioner) sons of Sohan Lal came on their motorcycle. While reaching there, they started fighting with Naula and Varinder. Meanwhile, Naula ran away after getting himself freed. The complainant hearing shouts came out and asked Sohan as to what was the matter. He said that the complainant would get to know lateron. After some time, Kanshi Ram (non-petitioner), Panchhi Ram (petitioner) and Sohan Lal (non-petitioner) came. Panchhi – petitioner was having a Datar in his hand. Kanshi Ram (non-petitioner) had a Takua and Sohan Lal (non-petitioner) had a Kirpan. Panchhi Ram – petitioner gave a Datar blow on the head of the complainant which hit him on the front of his head towards the right side. The petitioner gave three continuous blows with the Datar on the head of the complainant which struck the right hand ring finger and on the chest. The complainant wanted to get aside and he fell down because of which he suffered injury on his left shoulder. After hearing the shouts of the complainant, his wife – Joginder Kaur and other people gathered and on seeing them, the assailants went away from the spot. While going, the brother’s wife (Bhabhi) of the complainant snatched the Datar from the petitioner. In the fight, Surjit – brother of the complainant and his wife – Kamaljit Kaur also suffered many injuries. The statement of the complainant was recorded. It may be noticed that the occurrence is of 23.4.2007 and the petitioner has not been arrested till date. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that PO proceedings are pending against the petitioner. However, meanwhile, a compromise (P1) has been entered into between the parties. In terms of the said compromise, the complainant – Harmesh Lal has stated Cr Misc 13626 of 2009 and Cr Misc M-5961 of 2009 3 that the FIR which was registered on 27.4.2007 has been got settled amongst themselves by the Gram Panchayat of the village and by respectable persons and relatives. Both the parties after realizing their mistake had done this compromise without any fear and pressure in front of the Panchayat. Harmesh Lal – complainant wanted to withdraw the case. Besides, he shall be bound to give the statement on the basis of the compromise before the inquiry and any Court. The question regarding the compromise (P1) having been entered into, was not raised before the learned Additional Sessions Judge Jalandhar while considering the bail of the petitioner in terms of order dated 20.1.2009. The order dated 20.1.2009 records that no arguments were addressed at the time of arguments by the counsel for the applicant. It was noticed that the applicant was wanted by the Police for recovery of the Datar. However, in the FIR, it has been alleged by Harmesh Lal that while the assailants were running away, the brother’s wife (Bhabhi) of the complainant had snatched the Datar from the petitioner. Therefore, the Datar having been snatched at the time of the incident itself by the brother’s wife (Bhabhi) of the complainant, the same is not to be recovered from the petitioner. Considerable time has elapsed since the occurrence and the parties have even otherwise decided to amicably settle the matter. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is admitted to pre-arrest bail. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the petitioner in the event of his arrest, on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the arresting/IO shall be admitted to bail. He shall not leave the country without the permission of the Court during the pendency of the case. Besides, he shall also abide by the conditions of Section 438(2) CrPC. Cr Misc 13626 of 2009 and Cr Misc M-5961 of 2009 4 18.3.2009 ( S.S.SARON ) ASR Judge