CRM-M-16096 of 2010 - 1 - CRM-M-15527 of 2010 CRM-M-3473 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** 1. CRM-M-16096 of 2010 Date of Decision:16.12.2011 Rajbir Singh @ Raju Mota and another . . .Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondents ***** 2. CRM-M-15527 of 2010 Date of Decision:16.12.2011 Rajmohinder and another . . .Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another . . . Respondents ***** 3. CRM-M-3473 of 2011 Date of Decision:16.12.2011 Balbir Singh . . .Petitioner Versus Ganganjit Singh . . . Respondent ***** CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN ***** Present: Mr.R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate, with Mr.D.S. Brar, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr.K.D. Sachdeva, Addl. A.G. Punjab. Mr.Sudhir Sharma, Advocate, for the complainant. ***** CRM-M-16096 of 2010 - 2 - CRM-M-15527 of 2010 CRM-M-3473 of 2011 RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. (ORAL) This order shall dispose of three petitions bearing CRM-M-16096 of 2010 titled as “Rajbir Singh @ Raju Mota and another Vs. State of Punjab and another” (in short ‘Ist petition’), CRM-M-15527 of 2010 titled as “Rajmohinder and another Vs.State of Punjab and another” (in short ‘IInd petition’) and CRM-M-3473 of 2011 titled as “Balbir Singh Vs. Ganganjit Singh” (in short ‘IIIrd petition’) in which the petitioners have prayed for pre-arrest bail in a complaint case No. 199/1 of 2006 dated 21.8.2006 titled as Gaganjeet Singh Vs. Balbir Singh and others registered under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 & 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act which is pending in the Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that Balbir Singh, who is the petitioner in the IIIrd petition lodged a complaint of an occurrence dated 6.2.2006 on the basis of which FIR No.43 dated 6.2.2006 under Sections 302, 307, 326, 325, 324, 323, 148, 149 & 120-B IPC read with Section 25/27 of the Arms Act was registered at Police Station Ferozepur, City Abohar against Gaganjeet, Inderjit and Surender Pal, primarily for the murder of Baljit Singh, who happened to be the brother of Balbir Singh. On the next day of occurrence i.e. 7.2.2006, Gaganjeet Singh, who is also an accused in the aforesaid FIR, recorded cross version and named Balbir Singh/complainant in the aforesaid FIR and other 20 to 25 persons, in which, it was alleged that Balbir Singh had shot down Gurjit Singh and Baljit Singh (since deceased) along with Balbir Singh had caused injuries to Gaganjeet Singh (complainant). It is further submitted that a Criminal Misc. No.33921-M of 2006 was filed by Manjeet Kaur wife of Gaganjeet Singh in this Court for seeking direction for proper investigation and transfer of investigation to an independent agency. The said petition was allowed on 28.4.2011 and the FIR No.205 dated 27.6.2007 was registered. The aforesaid FIR was registered on the directions of this Court in the aforesaid petition namely, Criminal Misc.No.33921-M of 2006 on the same version CRM-M-16096 of 2010 - 3 - CRM-M-15527 of 2010 CRM-M-3473 of 2011 recorded on 7.2.2006. The order of this Court dated 28.4.2007 was challenged by Balbir Singh by way of SLP (Criminal) No.3555 of 2007, which was converted into Criminal Appeal No.963 of 2009 and was allowed on 8.5.2009. During the course of hearing before the Supreme Court, it was mentioned by the petitioner(s) that prior to the registration of the aforesaid FIR No.205, the complainant Gaganjeet Singh had also filed private complaint on 21.8.2006, which was though not brought to the notice of the High Court at the time when order dated 28.4.2007 was passed and cognizance was already taken in the complaint. In this view of the matter, order of the High Court dated 28.4.2007 was modified by the Supreme Court who had ordered that the complaint shall be taken to its logical end, meaning thereby, the aforesaid FIR was impliedly ordered not to be pursued. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that in the complaint, a new version has been given by the complainant to the effect, firstly, that Balbir Singh did not fire any shot on the deceased and secondly, new persons were introduced for the first time and seven injuries with blunt weapon were attributed as no fire arm injury was found in the medical report of the deceased Gurjit Singh. Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has further submitted that in the meanwhile, the complainant Gaganjeet Singh, who was facing trial in FIR No.43 was convicted along with other four accused by the learned Sessions Court, Ferozepur vide its order dated 28.4.2009. He further submits that Gaganjeet Singh had suffered a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) on 23.10.2008 that Rajbir Singh and Jaspal Singh, who are the petitioners in the Ist petition were not present at the scene of occurrence when Baljit Singh is alleged to have died. He also refers to the finding recorded by the learned Sessions Court by which Gaganjeet Singh etc. have been convicted on the ground that they were the assailants. In the end, it is submitted that pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioners have already appeared before the Courts below, furnished their bail bonds, are regularly attending the Court and CRM-M-16096 of 2010 - 4 - CRM-M-15527 of 2010 CRM-M-3473 of 2011 there is no allegation against them that they have misused the concession of bail and at the same time, it is submitted that on the last date of hearing, the interim order of this Court was vacated because of the reasons that the case had already been adjourned many times and the arguing counsel for the petitioner(s) was not present. In reply, learned counsel for the complainant has vehemently argued that it is a case, where the petitioner(s) much less Balbir Singh had killed Gurjit Singh, therefore, he does not deserve concession of anticipatory bail rather it is his case that everybody had participated in causing injuries as there are 14 injuries in all out of which 7 injuries have been suffered by Gurjit Singh and 7 injuries have been suffered by Gaganjeet Singh. It is also not disputed that after the bail was granted by this Court way back in May 2010, the petitioner(s) have neither misused the bail nor had ever threatened the complainant or any of his witnesses. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observation on the merits, the orders by which the petitioner(s) in all cases were granted interim bail, are hereby restored and it is also further ordered that bail bonds and sureties furnished by them shall enure till the culmination of the trial. (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) DECEMBER 16, 2011 JUDGE Vivek