Crl. Misc. No. M – 2449 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- Crl. Misc. No. M – 2449 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 28.4.2010 Partap Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana ... Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. S.S.Narula, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shalini Attri, DAG, Haryana. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) Heard. The petitioner/accused – Partap Singh has come up with the present petition under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for the grant of bail for the offences under Sections 302, 506 and 34 IPC, in respect of which FIR No. 434 dated 27.12.2008, was registered in Police Station Samalkha, District Panipat. According to the petitioner, he has been falsely implicated at the instance of the complainant. In fact he had been residing in village Samalkha and is practising as a lawyer in the field of Income Tax at Samalkha itself. He was not in the State of Haryana when the alleged occurrence took place as he had gone to attend Kriya Ceremony of the Crl. Misc. No. M – 2449 of 2010 (O&M) -2- mother-in-law of his sister in village – Salimpur, Uttar Pradesh, which was perfomed on 26.12.2008 from 3PM to 4 PM and he came to Samalkha during late hours. That fact was found to be correct by the investigating agency and as such he was not challaned. The version given by the complainant in the FIR is concocted one. In fact there was Chhatt ceremony in respect of the son of Krishan on 26.12.2008 and liquor was served in that function. The deceased went to attend that function and consumed liquor in excess and misbehaved with females. On account of that behavior of the deceased, the injuries were inflicted to him by the villagers and he died of those injuries. The FIR was got registered by Chain Singh, who is son of Rakam Singh- deceased. He narrated therein that on 26.12.2008, he alongwith his father and Vijay Pal was coming to their house from the fields. At about 8.30 PM, when they reached near the house of Chandra, Sube Singh was coming from front side and raised lalkara and asked his co-accused Dinesh and the present petitioner – Partap Singh to come in the street and teach lesson to Rakam Singh for not returning money. Thereafter the present petitioner alongwith his co-accused came to the spot with lathis in their hands and were followed by wife of Dinesh. After raising lalkara, the petitioner and Dinesh inflicted blows with their lathis on the head of Rakam Singh. Rakam Singh was being caught hold by Sube Singh and wife of Dinesh, while the injuries were being inflicted by the present petitioner and Dinesh. During the investigation, the present petitioner was found to be innocent and was not challaned. However, during the trial, statement of Crl. Misc. No. M – 2449 of 2010 (O&M) -3- Chain Singh was recorded and on the basis of that statement, he was summoned as an additional accused to stand his trial alongwith other accused for the afore-said offences. Notice of the petition was given to the State. I have heard learned counsel for both the sides. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that on the day of occurrence the petitioner was away to U.P to attend the Kriya Ceremony of the mother-in-law of his sister and had come to Samalkha late night and had never gone to village where the alleged occurrence is said to have taken place. He has also contended that on the basis of the evidence recorded during investigation, the petitioner was found to be innocent. Chain Singh has sworn an affidavit, which has been admitted, during the statement which was recorded before the trial Court. He deposed in that affidavit that his father Rakam Singh did not receive injuries at the hands of the present petitioner. It is pertinent to note that Examination-in-Chief of Chain Singh was recorded on 2.6.2009 and his cross-examination was recorded later on. The trial Court adopted the procedure which is against the authoritative judgment of the Supreme Court that cross- examination of the witness should not be deferred for such a long period as that gives an opportunity to the accused to win over the witnesses. The same happened in the present case. The said affidavit of Chain Singh is dated 3.6.2009, which means the same was procured on the very next day of the recording of examination-in- chief of the complainant. Inspite of that affidavit, he never resiled from the statement made in Examination-in-Chief. No doubt it was put to him during Crl. Misc. No. M – 2449 of 2010 (O&M) -4- the course of cross-examination that the present petitioner was not present at Samalkha on 25.12.2008 and that he came back in late-hours of 26.12.2008, but he had shown his ignorance about all those facts. The facts remains that according to him the occurrence took place on 26.12.2008 at 8.30 PM. It was not at late hours of the day that occurrence took place. It took place during the night. The petitioner might have been found innocent during the investigation, but the Court is to believe the version which comes before it and not a finding recorded by the investigating agency. It was categorically stated by the complainant that this petitioner gave lathi blows to the deceased. Eight injuries were found on the dead body and those were found to be a sufficient to cause his death, which shows the direct involvement of the petitioner in the murder. Keeping in view the gravity of the offence and the circumstances in which the said offence was committed, no ground is made out for releasing the petitioner on bail. Whatever has been said above, shall not be treated as an expression of opinion on the merits of this case. Petition is disposed of accordingly. April 28, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge