Crl.Misc.No.M-9968 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Crl.Misc.No. M-9968 of 2008 Date of decision: 13.8.2009 Deepinder Singh alias Deepa ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab ... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH. Present: Mr. Vikas Bahl, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.P.S.Grewal, AAG, Punjab. ... JORA SINGH, J. Deepinder Singh alias Deepa has filed this petition under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail in case FIR No.136 dated 3.7.2007 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324 and 341/34 IPC registered at Police Station Sahnewal, District Ludhiana. As per prosecution story, Deepinder Singh alias Deepa was armed with a kahi and gave blow to Sukhwinder Singh deceased. Sukhbir Singh had also given a kahi blow to the complainant namely Harpreet Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that initially, the FIR was registered under Sections 323, 324, 341/34 IPC, but later on, offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was added. After the death of Sukhwinder Singh, offence punishable under Section 302 IPC was also added. Sukhwinder Singh was referred to CMC, Ludhiana, where his CT Scan was conducted on 3.7.2007. Small haemorrhagic contusions and Crl.Misc.No.M-9968 of 2008 2 fracture, and depressed fracture on left parietal bone and right hemipiegia was found. He was operated upon on 3.7.2007 for left parietal craniectomy and elevation of depressed bone. After the operation, he developed meningitis. Sukhwinder Singh was then referred to PGI on 2.8.2007. Sukhwinder Singh died on 27.8.2007 due to septicemia shock. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is in custody for the last about 2 years and the prosecution is to take time to complete its evidence, as till date, only one witness has been examined by it. He prays that in view of the law laid down in 2009(1) RCR (Crl.) 657, Dalip Singh vs. State of Punjab, the petitioner may be released on bail. Learned State counsel argued that cross version was found to be false. Harpreet Singh was also named in the FIR, but he was not challaned. Later on, an application under Section 319 Cr.P.C. to summon Harpreet Singh was filed and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.2.2008 passed by the Sessions Judge, Ludhiana. But father of the petitioner filed Crl.Revision No.454 of 2008 against the order dated 18.2.2008. Harpreet Singh was produced in the Court but on the request of defence counsel, he was not examined. He further argued that the petitioner is to interfere with the appearance of the witnesses, if released on bail. Undisputedly, the petitioner was armed with a kahi and gave blow to the deceased. Harpreet Singh was also named in the FIR, but he was not challaned. After the challan was presented in the Court, then after charge, Harpreet Singh appeared, but on the request of defence counsel, his statement was not recorded. Again Harpreet Singh was produced as PW but his cross-examination was deferred in view of application filed under Crl.Misc.No.M-9968 of 2008 3 Section 319 Cr.P.C. Said application was accepted vide order dated 18.2.2008, but against that order, a criminal revision is pending. Injury with a kahi was on the vital part. After investigation, Harpreet Singh son of Jagtar Singh was not challaned, particularly when he was named in the FIR. Firstly, delay is on the part of defence counsel, who had not cross-examined the witness, and secondly, father of the petitioner filed revision and order allowing the application filed under Section 319 Cr.P.C. was challenged. The eye witness is yet to appear in the Court. So, the petitioner is to interfere with the appearance of the witnesses, if released on bail. No dispute about the above cited authority, but keeping in view the nature of offence, particularly when the petitioner is to interfere with the appearance of the witnesses, I am of the opinion that no ground for bail is made out before the examination of eye witnesses, at this stage. The petition is dismissed accordingly. 13.8.2009 ( JORA SINGH ) pk JUDGE