Crl. Misc. No.M-12473 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: November 29, 2011. (1) Crl. Misc. No.M-12473 of 2011. Dilbagbir Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .. Respondent * * * (2) Crl. Misc. No.M-23763 of 2011. Kabal Singh .. Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.G.S.Bhatia, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-12473 of 2011 Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-23763 of 2011 Mr.K.S.Sidhu, DAG., Punjab. Mr.G.K.Mann, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S.BEDI, J. This order will dispose of the above noted two petitions for the grant of regular bail, i.e., Crl. Misc. No.M-12473 of . . .1 Crl. Misc. No.M-12473 of 2011 2011, filed by Dilbagbir Singh and Crl. Misc. No.M-23763 of 2011, filed by Kabal Singh. The case was registered at the instance of Rachhpal Singh alleging that his son Balkar Singh had solemnized a love marriage with Arvinder Pal Kaur @ Rimpi, about one year prior to the occurrence. His son Balkar Singh had told him and his wife Kulwant Kaur that Rimpi's parents were searching for them and that they had an apprehension that they would kill them. Balkar Singh and Rimpi had slept in the house of the complainant on 24.01.2009 along with his wife Kulwant Kaur. Son-in-law, Bakshish Singh and Rimpi were present in their house sitting on the roof. They had gone to fetch some articles. When Balkar Singh was returning and was present near the school near drain, three vehicles arrived from which armed persons got down who fired at Balkar Singh. The stopped vehicles and came towards the house of the complainant and stopped on the side of drain. 4/5 persons got down and approached the house armed with guns and revolvers. On reaching near the house, they raised lalkara saying that they had killed Balkar Singh and Rimpi would not be left alive. Rimpi disclosed their names as Kabal Singh father, Ranbir Singh brother and Jatinder Singh and Surmail Singh. The armed persons started firing with their weapons upon which Rimpi in order to save herself got down from the roof and started running towards the fields. The armed persons chased her and fired at her resulting in her death in the fields. Thereafter, the armed persons went towards the village on their vehicles. It is a case . . .2 Crl. Misc. No.M-12473 of 2011 of honour killing of Balkar Singh as both had married against the wishes of family members of Rimpi and sought protection by approaching the High Court. They had been granted protection by the High Court on 01.01.2009. Mr.Vikram Chaudhary, counsel for Kabal Singh has argued that Kabal Singh along with others has been summoned as an additional accused as he was found innocent and kept in column No.2 of the challan. Four of his co-accused had been challaned. It has also been contended that in view of dual version having already cropped up qua the petitioner, he can be granted the concession of regular bail. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not misused his liberty. A strong reliance has been placed on the report of the police declaring him innocent. It has been submitted that in view of his conduct of having voluntarily appeared on being summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., he can be granted the concession of regular bail. So far as Dilbagbir Singh is concerned, he is maternal uncle of deceased Rimpi. Mr.G.S.Bhatia, counsel for the petitioner Dilbagbir Singh, has submitted that Arvinder Pal Kaur alias Rimpi deceased had told the names of the attacking party to the complainant. The name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the FIR as the petitioner was not actually present on the spot. He has got nothing to do with marriage of Arvinder Pal Kaur @ Rimpi with Balkar Singh. Dilbagbir Singh has been arrayed as an accused on the basis of extra judicial . . .3 Crl. Misc. No.M-12473 of 2011 confession made before one Harbans Singh. It was argued that Rachhpal Singh knew the petitioner as he belongs to adjoining village at the distance of 1½ kilometres from the village of the petitioner. Harbans Singh before whom the petitioner has made extra judicial confession has been examined on 12.11.2010. He has specifically stated that Chand Singh and Dilbagbir Singh, petitioner never made any confessional statement. Kulwant Kaur PW in her statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C., did not name the petitioner while appearing as a witness in the Court, Kulwant Kaur has improved her statement and involved the petitioner also in the case. It is claimed that the petitioner has been in custody w.e.f., January 2009. I have heard the counsel for the petitioners and carefully gone through the circumstances of the case. It is a case of honour killiing in which the accused party had a clear motive to kill both Rimpi and Balkar Singh. Name of Kabal Singh is specifically mentioned in the FIR. The fact that he was declared innocent is not relevant, at this stage, when his participation has been pointed out by the eye-witness. No doubt normally a person having been summoned under Section 319 Cr.P.C., is granted concession of bail on account of the apparent dual version against him but in the present case, the petitioner cannot derive benefit on the basis of his status being an accused mentioned in column No.2 of the challan. The petitioner is the close relation of deceased Rimpi. Rimpi and . . .4 Crl. Misc. No.M-12473 of 2011 Balkar Singh had filed a petition for protection in the High Court which is part of the police record. Petitioner Kabal Singh had been specifically mentioned as a person from whom the deceased had danger to their life. Even the High Court had granted protection to them. Granting bail to the petitioner merely on the ground that he was found innocent by the police would tantamount to playing in the hands of Investigating Agency. It is a double murder case in which the victims have been mercilessly killed with bullet injuries. The participation or conspiracy of the accused is reflected from the circumstances which are existing on the record. No ground is made out to grant the concession of bail to petitioner Kabal Singh. So far as petitioner Dilbagbir Singh is concerned, it will not be appropriate, at this stage, to appreciate the strength of the evidence against him. The improvements made by the witnesses cannot be considered at this stage when almost all the prosecution witnesses stand examined. No ground is made to allow the petition for bail filed by the petitioner Dilbagbir Singh. Both the petitions are dismissed. Nothing said in this order will prejudice the rights of the petitioners at the time of final disposal of the case. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE November 29, 2011. rka . . .5