Crl. Misc. No. M-12912 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-12912 of 2009 Date of decision: 14.5.2009 Bhappa Singh and another ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. K.K. Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the petitioners. The petitioners seeks regular bail in a case registered against them for the offences under Sections 302, 307, 450, 148 and 149 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Ranjit Kaur complainant. It is alleged by the complainant Ranjit Kaur that she was married with Gurmeet Singh (deceased) for the last 23 years. She had three sons namely Gurpreet Singh, Gursewak Singh and Inderjit Singh, besides a daughter namely Sarabjit Kaur. Her husband Gurmeet Singh (deceased) used to visit the house of one Manjit Kaur widow of Leelu Singh. The complainant out of fear did not raise any objection. However, for the last seven days, Gurmeet Singh (deceased) had brought Manjit Kaur to their house permanently with the intervention of Panchayat. The complainant Ranjit Kaur out of fear had consented. The son of the complainant namely Gursewak Singh was working in a factory at village Sanghera. The other son Inderjit Crl. Misc. No. M-12912 of 2009 -2- Singh was with trucks and was out of the house on the date of the incident. The complainant after taking dinner along with her other son namely Gurpreet Singh were lying in a room. Gurmeet Singh (deceased) husband of the complainant, Manjit Kaur and daughter of the complainant namely Sarabjit Kaur were lying in the adjoining room where the television was played. At about 11.00 p.m., they had woken up and saw that 5-7 boys entered their house by scaling the wall. They raised a lalkara that send out the paramour who had kept their mother. On this, the complainant and her son Gurpreet Singh came out. The boys who had entered were identified as Jagtar Singh and Jarnail Singh sons of Manjit Kaur widow of Leelu Singh. They were armed with swords. Jagsir Singh @ Seera (petitioner No.2) who is the cousin of Jagtar Singh (son of father’s sister i.e. Bhua’s son) was armed with an ‘iron rod’. In the meanwhile, 2-3 more persons entered their house and two of them were Santokh Singh and Bhappa Singh (petitioner No.1) son of Dalip Singh. The rest of the boys were armed with sticks and gandasis. The son of the complainant namely Gurpreet Singh said to Jagtar Singh and others that their mother had come with his father on her own. The complainant and her son Gurpreet Singh resisted the boys who had entered their house. Then the companions of Jagtar Singh pushed the complainant aside. Jagtar Singh and Jarnail Singh openly attacked on Gurpreet Singh with their swords. Hearing their hue and cry, Gurmeet Singh (deceased) came out from his room and as he came out then all the assailants attacked him in the presence of the complainant. Jagtar Singh, Jarnail Singh and Seera Singh (petitioner No.2) with their swords/rod, Santokh Singh and Bhappa Singh (petitioner No.1) and other boys with their sticks and dangs attacked and inflicted injuries on Gurmeet Singh (deceased) in the courtyard. All of them were raising lalkaras. The complainant and his son remained silent out of fear. Manjit Kaur and daughter of the complainant namely Sarabjit Kaur hid themselves inside the room. Then Jagtar Singh and Jaila Singh said that the matter of Gurmeet Singh (deceased) had been done and they would see the others afterwards and they left the house by raising Crl. Misc. No. M-12912 of 2009 -3- lakaras. After they had left, the complainant and her son Gurpreet Singh took care of Gurmeet Singh husband of the complainant who was lying in the courtyard. There were injuries of swords on his right and left arms and forehead, which were caused by Jagtar Singh and Jaila Singh with their swords and there was blood all over and he was on his last breaths. All the boys while leaving threatened the complainant and her sons and daughter that in case they complained against them in the Police Station then they would be killed. The learned Additional Session Judge, Bathinda in his order dated 22.4.2009 (Annexure P2) while declining the bail to the petitioners observed that Seera Singh (petitioner No.2) was armed with an ‘iron rod’ and Bhappa Singh (petitioner No.1) was armed with a ‘dang’ and they had openly attacked on the deceased Gurmeet Singh and inflicted injuries on his person. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the said findings are incorrect as in the FIR it has been alleged that Jagtar Singh and Jarnail Singh had opened the attack on Gurpreet Singh with their swords. Besides, when Gurmeet Singh husband of the complainant came outside, then Jagtar Singh and Jarnail Singh had openly attacked on him. It is submitted that petitioner No.1 Bhappa Singh is alleged to be armed with ‘dang’ and petitioner No.2 Seera Singh is alleged to be armed with an iron rod. It is submitted that there are 22 injuries on the persons which are all incised wounds. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be said to have caused the injuries on the person of Gurmeet Singh. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter and perusing the records, I find no merit in the same. It may be noticed that the petitioners are the persons who entered the house of the complainant Ranjit Kaur. A perusal of the statement of the complainant Ranjit Kaur shows that Jagtar Singh and Jarnail Singh openly attacked Gurpreet Singh who is the son of the complainant. Gurmeet Singh (deceased) husband of the complainant was attacked and injuries were inflicted on his person. It is when Gurmeet Singh (deceased) after hearing hue and cry came out Crl. Misc. No. M-12912 of 2009 -4- of his room then all the assailants had attacked him which includes the petitioners as well. The petitioners are attributed injuries on the person of deceased. The fact that injuries are mostly incised and Seera Singh (petitioner No.2) is stated to be armed with an iron rod and Bhappa Singh (petitioner No.1) is stated to be armed with ‘dang’ is not of much significance as injuries No.1 to 3 are on the head and these are incised wounds. The skin just above the hard surface of head breaks when the injuries are caused by a severe blow and give the appearance of incised injuries. The contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are not specifically attributed any injury, therefore, is also inconsequential as the petitioners were armed at the time of the incident and are alleged to have caused injuries on the person of the deceased. Besides, there were 22 injuries on the person of the deceased. In the circumstances, no ground for bail is made out to the petitioners and the Crl. Misc. petition is accordingly dismissed. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE May 14, 2009 amit