Crl. Misc. No.M-11116 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-11116 of 2010 Date of decision: 17.02.2011 Shangara Singh and another .. Petitioners Versus State of Punjab .. Respondent Present:- Mr.J.B.S. Gill, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl.A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. The affidavit of Sh. Rakesh Aggarwal, Senior Superintendent of Police has been filed in Court today, which is taken on record. It is stated that nineteen witnesses have been cited by the prosecution. Out of them, examination-in-chief of four prosecution witnesses namely Dr.O.P. Gojra, Dr. Des Raj, Dr. Rajesh Mehta and Manjit Kaur have been recorded. Thereafter, their cross-examination has also been recorded; besides, the examination-in-chief of Gurmej Kaur has been recorded. Five prosecution witnesses namely R.P. Soroa, Surjit Kaur, C. Paramjit Singh, SI Sukhwinder Singh and Inspector Rakesh Kumar have been given up by the Assistant District Attorney being unnecessary. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioners-Shangara Singh and Sukhdev Singh alias Beera sons of Teja Singh seek regular bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 324, 323, 148, 452 and 149 IPC, at Police Station Sadar, Hoshiarpur. Crl. Misc. No.M-11116 of 2010 ::2:: The FIR, in the case, has been registered on the statement of Manjit Kaur whose husband-Balbir Singh was murdered in the incident that occurred on 17.11.2008 at about 6.00 p.m. The complainant and her husband-Balbir Singh (deceased) and her mother-in-law Gejo were present at the house of Lehmber Singh, who is the husband's elder brother (Jeth) of the complainant. At that time, Gurmail Singh son of Teja Singh, his brother Beera (petitioner No.2), Shangara (petitioner No.1) and Tholu son of Shangara, Shangara's wife namely Pammi, two daughters of Shangara namely Seema and Gagan and Jeeto (sister of Gurmail Singh) came to the house the complainant. Beera (petitioner No.2) had a gandasi and on reaching the place of occurrence he gave a gandasi blow on the head of Balbir Singh (husband of the complainant). Shangara (petitioner No.1) gave a datar blow on the head of the husband of the complainant. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per post-mortem report of the deceased-Balbir Singh, there was only one injury on his (Balbir Singh's) head. A reference has been made to the statement (Annexure P-1) of Dr.O.P. Gojra, Medical Officer of Civil Hospital, Hoshiarpur, who conducted the post-mortem on the dead body. He found one injury on the head; besides, one in the abdomen. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that one injury on the head cannot be caused by the petitioners who are attributed one injury each on the head of the complainant. Therefore, it is submitted that both the petitioners are entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the case before the learned trial Court is at a crucial stage as prosecution is examining its witnesses. Out of nineteen prosecution witnesses, it is stated, five witnesses have been given up and the affidavit of Senior Superintendent of Police, Hoshiarpur, in this regard, has been filed. Out of Crl. Misc. No.M-11116 of 2010 ::3:: other fourteen witnesses, the examination of four witnesses is completed. The case before the learned trial Court is fixed for hearing for 16.03.2011. The contention as raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner would mere appropriately be considered and gone into by the learned trial Court. The present is a case of murder of Balbir Singh. The petitioners are specifically attributed a role of causing injuries on the head of deceased. The statement (Annexure P-1) of Doctor O.P. Gojra (PW-1) is not to be considered by this Court while considering the application for grant of bail. The criminal miscellaneous petition is accordingly dismissed. It is, however, hoped that the learned trial Court would expedite the trial in the case. However, nothing stated herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of case and the learned trial Court shall consider the evidence and material as adduced before it and uninfluenced by any observation made hereinabove. (S.S. SARON) February 17, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet