IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No. M-22878 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.2.2011 Rohit Mehta …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another …. Respondents Present: Mr. D.K. Bhatti, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. T.S. Salana, DAG, Punjab. Mr. Tejinderpal Singh, Advocate for the complainant. *** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 1.5.2009 for the offences under Sections 307, 326, 324, 392, 323, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the complaint of Sukhvir Singh who along with his children is living in Canada. He comes to his village for selling his agricultural produce. On the date of incident i.e. 29.4.2009 the complainant and others were watering their fields and their relative Jaswinder Singh @ Buta Singh who was staying with them at their village was present on the fields with the complainant. After completing their work, the complainant and Jaswinder Singh @ Buta Singh were going on scooter towards their village. At about 7.30 p.m. when the scooter CRM No. M-22878 of 2010 [2] took a turn from the Pakka (metalled) road to kacha (unmetalled) road of the village then a vehicle came from the village side and the driver of that vehicle hit their scooter. On this, the complainant and his relative namely Jaswinder Singh @ Buta Singh fell down. Thereafter, 5-6 armed persons came out of the vehicle; out of them, the complainant recognized Jagroop Singh @ Rupa, Hardev Singh @ Giani and Bachiter Singh @ Mitta (non-petitioners). These persons attacked the complainant with their respective weapons on his legs. The petitioner is not named in the FIR and is one of the unidentified person. The role of the petitioner has been brought out on the statement of Gurmukh Singh @ Goma who is said to have made an extra- judicial confession before one Sri Ram. The said Gurmukh Singh @ Goma has been granted the concession of bail by this Court in terms of order dated 17.12.2009 (Annexure P2). The complainant, it is stated, is abroad. According to the learned State counsel and the complainant, the petitioner took an active part in the occurrence and caused injuries on the legs of the complainant. It is submitted that both the legs of the complainant have been affected and one of the legs was amputated. The other leg is also not useable. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the petitioner is not named in the FIR. His name has figured from the disclosure statement of Gurmukh Singh @ Goma who named the petitioner as one CRM No. M-22878 of 2010 [3] of the accused and injuries have been attributed to him. During investigation statement of Sri Ram was recorded under Section 161 CrPC. An extra-judicial confession is said to have been made by Gurmukh Singh @ Goma before the said Sri Ram and the petitioner Rohit Mehta was also named as an accused to whom also injuries have been attributed. The said Sri Ram before whom an extra-judicial confession was made by the accused had died on 7.8.2009. His death certificate (Annexure P5) has been taken on record vide order dated 24.1.2011. The complainant has gone abroad though it is stated that he has gone for treatment. The petitioner is in custody since 13.8.2009. The co-accused of the petitioner namely Gurmukh Singh @ Goma has been granted the concession of bail by this Court in terms of order dated 17.12.2009 (Annexure P2). In the circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nawan Shahar shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) February 7, 2011 JUDGE amit