Crl.M. No. M-29468 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.M. No. M-29468 of 2008 Date of decision : 16.2.2009. ... Malook Singh ................ Petitioner vs. State of Punjab .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. L.S. Goraya, Advocate for the petitioner. Sh. P.S. Bajwa, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) As per allegation of the prosecution, the FIR in question was recorded on the statement of Sukhdev Singh s/o Rattan Singh, who has stated that he contested for the election of Block Samiti from the side of Congress party at village Thikhriwal. On the date of occurrence he alongwith his brother Satnam Singh were going to check the school booth and when they reached near Gurutejbahadur Academy, at about 10.30 P.M. one jeep Jonga Type came from the front side and stopped a little ahead of them. In the jeep Amarjit Singh s/o Dalip Singh, Gurdayal Singh s/o Dalip Singh and Malook Singh s/o Bahadur Singh s/o Jogi Cheema, armed with double barrel Crl.M. No. M-29468 of 2008 -2- guns, .12 bore and Sukhwinder Singh @ Raju s/o Gurdayal Singh r/o Jogicheema armed with 32 bore pistol, Tabal Singh s/o Bahadur Singh r/o Jogi Cheema armed with rifle .315 bore alighted from the jeep and on seeing them gave a lalkara to catch hold of them and teach them a lesson for contesting the elections. On this Malook Singh fired from his dasti DB Gun .12 bore at the complainant with an intention to kill him, due to which 5-6 pallets hit him on his right leg. Both the complainant and his brother raised an alarm. The accused ran away with their respective weapons. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that four other accused against whom there are similar set of allegations, have been declared innocent. No weapon of offence has been recovered. The occurrence took place at the night. There are chances of mis- identification. He has further contended that injuries are simple in nature. He has further contended that Jonga in question has not been recovered. So, the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the authorities reported as Basant Singh vs. State of Punjab 1986 (2) Recent C.R. 245, Bhagirath Singh vs. The State of Gujarat 1984 C.C. Cases 17 (SC) and State of Haryana vs. Hazari and another 1991 (3) Recent C.R. 352. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that fire arm injuries are on the person of the complainant. The injury given by the petitioner is to kill the complainant, due to election dispute. So, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. I have considered the submissions made by both the sides Crl.M. No. M-29468 of 2008 -3- and have also gone through the record of the case. It so seems that counsel for the petitioner has argued the case as he is arguing on the merits of the final decision of the case. There is specific attribution to the petitioner that he has given fire arm injury to the complainant. There are corresponding MLR in which 6 pallets were recovered and injury has been attributed of fire arm. The fact of non-recovery of weapon is to be seen at the time of trial. However, the other four accused has not been attributed any overact. So, far as the submission that injuries are simple in nature and so the petitioner is entitled to the concession of bail, is concerned, for this intention of the petitioner is to be seen. He was armed with deadly weapon and fired a shot. The intention of the petitioner is clear. So far as the point of mis-identification of the petitioner is concerned, the name of the petitioner appears in the FIR. So, there are no chances of mis-identification. So far as the authority in Basant Singh's case (Supra) is concerned, in that authority there are no allegations of firing and none of the injury was declared dangerous to life. So far as the authority in Hazari 's case (Supra), is concerned, that authority also relates to the final decision of the case. At the time of grant of bail only prima facie case has itself to be seen. As discussed above, the name of the petitioner appears in the FIR, so the petitioner cannot get any benefit of that authority. So, far as the authority in Bhagirath Singh's case (Supra) is concerned, that authority is also distinguishable to the facts of present case, as in that case bail was granted by the trial Court, which was cancelled by the High Court and the Hon'ble Apex Crl.M. No. M-29468 of 2008 -4- Court on the circumstances of that case had upset the order of the High Court. No doubt the basic law is the grant of bail to the accused but at the time of granting bail, the Court has to see the gravity of offence and part attributed to the applicant. So, cumulative fact is that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The petition stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 16.2.2009. Judge chug