IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-6271 of 2011 Date of decision: 28.2.2011 Amarjot Singh …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. Hemender Goswami, Advocate for the petitioner. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 13.11.2009 for the offence under Section 302 and Section 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Surinder Yadav whose brother Manoj died in the incident that occurred on 11.11.2009 at 8.30 p.m. The complainant, his brother Manoj (deceased) and Pintu Kumar son of Mahinder Yadav, an uncle (Chacha) of the complainant were going from the factory to their room after duty. When they had reached at the rear side of Surindra Cycle Factory at about 8.45 p.m., then three young boys in the age group of 20-25 years with short hair, mullah fashion beard and thin built were standing near a black colour motorcycle. One of the boys came in front of the complainant and his associates and stopped them. He asked them to handover whatever they were having. The complainant side said that they did not have anything. Then one person out of them with full force hit on the head of Manoj (deceased), brother of the complainant with an iron rod; due to which he fell CRM No. M-6271 of 2011 [2] down and blood started oozing out from his head. Then the complainant-Surinder Yadav and Pintu raised an alarm and people gathered at the spot. All the three persons then fled away from the spot on their motorcycle. The complainant could recognize the assailants on seeing them. However, he could not read the number of the motorcycle due to darkness. A vehicle was arranged and Manoj was taken to Apollo Hospital. Later, on 12.11.2009, they took Manoj to ESI Hospital from where he was referred to PGI, Chandigarh for treatment and he died on 13.11.2009. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. It is stated that during investigation, statement (Annexure P3) of Gulab Singh was recorded under Section 161 CrPC which is an extra-judicial confession of Avtar Singh @ Tari, Amarjot Singh (petitioner) and Gurpreet Singh @ Mapi. The said three persons had come to Gulab Singh and stated that they had committed a mistake. They stopped three labourers under the influence of liquor near Sahu Steel Factory with the intention of snatching their belongings. They asked them to handover the belongings and they tried to run away. Then one of them, Gurpreet Singh caught the arm of Manoj (deceased) and Avtar Singh @ Tari hit him on his head with an iron rod. The petitioner Amarjot Singh also gave a rod blow on his leg, due to which he became unconscious and fell down. The assailants then ran away from the spot. It is submitted that Gulab Singh has been examined in the trial court as PW1. A reference has been made to his cross-examination wherein it is stated by him (PW1) that Amarjot Singh (petitioner) never came to him for making a confession and he had never seen him earlier. He had seen the petitioner on that day (i.e. CRM No. M-6271 of 2011 [3] 29.10.2010) for the first time in Court. It is also submitted that Gulab Singh (PW1) in his cross-examination stated that he does not know Avtar Singh, Gurpreet Singh and their family members; besides, he does not know their occupation. It may be noticed that the statement of Gulab Singh (PW1) was recorded initially on 25.10.2010 in which he supported the prosecution case and identified the accused present in Court. His cross-examination was deferred and on the adjourned date i.e. 29.10.2010 Gulab Singh (PW1) in his cross- examination stated that he had never seen Amarjot Singh (petitioner) earlier and that he had seen him for the first time in Court. Gulab Singh (PW1) was further cross-examined by the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and he stated that he had deposed in the Court on 25.10.2010 about the accused Amarjot Singh (petitioner) coming to him and making a confessional statement before him. It is stated that the statement made by him in Court on 29.9.2010 is the correct one to the extent that Amarjot Singh accused (petitioner) had not come to him. Statement made by him (Gulab Singh) on 25.10.201, it is submitted, was under pressure of the Police qua accused Amarjot Singh (petitioner). He had never made a statement to the Police as to whether accused Amarjot Singh (petitioner) came to him or not. The statement of Gulab Singh (PW1) recorded in the Court is Ex.PW1/A and statement recorded under Section 161 CrPC is Ex.PW1/B where it is recorded that accused Amarjot Singh (petitioner) came to him on 11.11.2009 at 8.45 p.m. near Saru Steel Factory and informed him that he had stopped three labourers with the intention to rob them under the influence of liquor and that he demanded articles from them. Petitioner- Amarjot Singh gave an iron rod blow on the leg of Manoj and he CRM No. M-6271 of 2011 [4] fell down. Besides, Amarjot Singh (petitioner) confessed that he had committed a blunder by mistake and realized his mistake and he was ready to pay the compensation to the family of Manoj. Attention of the witness was drawn towards his statement Ex.PW1/A from portion A to A1 and B to B1 of statement Ex.PW1/B and he denied having made such a statement. The effect of the examination-in-chief and cross- examination of Gulab Singh (PW1) is to be considered by the learned trial Court after evidence has been completed. At one stage Gulab Singh (PW1) supports the prosecution case, however, in cross-examination which is recorded four days thereafter, he does not support the prosecution. Therefore, it would be improper at this stage to go into the veracity of the evidence and comment upon the same. This is solely the domain of the learned trial court where the case is pending. It may also be noticed that Surinder Yadav, complainant, brother of the deceased-Manoj in his statement has also stated that he can recognize the accused. The deposition of the complainant has not so far been recorded by the learned trial court. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana in his order dated 16.2.2011 (Annexure P2) while declining bail to the petitioner observed that the allegations against the petitioner are that he gave on iron rod blow on the head of Manoj due to which blood was oozing out and consequently, he died in the hospital. These aspects may not be entirely correct as Gulab Singh (PW1) before whom the extra-judicial confession was made has stated that Amarjot Singh (petitioner) had caused injuries on the leg of Manoj. However, this aspect is also to be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court. The trial in the case is pending. The involvement of the petitioner cannot be CRM No. M-6271 of 2011 [5] determined at this stage. However, in view of the role attributed to the petitioner by the prosecution, no ground is made out to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. Nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and the learned trial Court shall consider the evidence and material as adduced before it uninfluenced by any observation made therein. (S.S. SARON) February 28, 2011 JUDGE amit