Crl. Misc. No.M-35066 of 2010 ::1:: IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No.M-35066 of 2010 Date of decision: 04.01.2011 Gurdeep Singh .. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab .. Respondents Present:- Mr.Bipan Ghai, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.M.C.Berry, Addl. A.G., Punjab. * * * * S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him on 14.10.2008 at Police Station Banur, District Patiala, for the offences under Sections 304/307, 324, 323, 452/201 and 34 IPC. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sikander Singh in respect of the incident that occurred on 14.10.2008, which was a holiday and the complainant was, therefore, at his home with his family. His wife-Surinder Kaur brought tea for the family. The complainant, his son Pardeep Singh and daughters namely Mandeep Kaur and Ranbir Kaur were sitting in the courtyard. In the meantime, a neighbour of the complainant namely Gurmail Singh, his son Gagandeep Singh and Deepa (Gurdeep Singh-petitioner) son of Nirmal Singh and one Pehalwan (Wrestler-Bahadur Singh) who was generally with them came to their house. Gurmail Singh and Gagandeep Singh had kirpan while Deepa @ Gurdeep Singh (petitioner) had a base ball bat. The Pehalwan- Bahadur Crl. Misc. No.M-35066 of 2010 ::2:: Singh had a danda. Gurmail Singh raised a lalkara that Sikander Singh and his family should not be spared. In the fight that ensued the petitioner who had a baseball bat caused three injuries on the person of the complainant. In the meantime, while the fight was going on, a neighbour of the complainant namely Sukhwinder Singh (deceased) came there and all of them caused injuries to him. Thereafter, all the four assailants ran away from the place of occurrence. Sukhwinder Singh was being taken to the hospital and he died on the way. The petitioner Gurdeep Singh @ Deepa has been attributed three injuries on the person of Sikander Singh (complainant). As per the medical report (Annexure P-2) of the complainant-Sikander Singh, there are five injuries on his person. Injuries No.3, 4 and 5 are attributed to the petitioner. These are: swelling about 4cm x 2cm behind left elbow joint, a cut about 1cm long and another cut about ½ cm long on the middle of right arm and swelling on the right side of back; besides, abrasions on the whole back. The doctor advised X-ray of skull, X-ray of chest-P.A. view and left elbow joint. But the X-ray report was not attached with the charge report (challan) that was filed by the police in terms of Section 173 Cr.P.C. It is submitted that the assailants had no intention to kill Sukhwinder Singh and, therefore, the challan has been presented for the offence under Section 304 IPC. Learned counsel for the state has opposed the petition. It is submitted that the petitioner along with others had caused injuries on the person of the deceased-Sukhwinder Singh. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is attributed injuries on the person of the complainant-Sikander Singh. It is submitted that the medical legal report as regards the injuries suffered by Sikander Singh (complainant) has been received and the Crl. Misc. No.M-35066 of 2010 ::3:: doctor has opined injuries No.3, 4 and 5, which are attributed to the petitioner, to be simple in nature. Besides, it may be noticed that Sukhwinder Singh (deceased) had received only one injury on the left thigh, which has been mentioned as a punctured wound 2cm x 1cm x 9cm (on probing) eliptical in shape, vertically placed on the inner and anterior surface on the left thigh about 8cm below from the beginning of inner surface of left thigh; besides, the left thigh was swollen. The cause of death has been mentioned: due to rupture of the femoral artery and vein in the femoral triangle of left thigh, which caused massive haemorrhage and lead to hypvolenic shock which is sufficient to cause death by itself. It may be noticed that it is not quite clear that as to which of the accused is the said injury attributed. Besides, the challan has been filed for the offence under Section 304 IPC and not for the offence under Section 302 IPC. The petitioner is in custody since 20.11.2009 and no witness has been examined in the case so far. The trial in the case is likely to take time as charges are yet to be framed. In the circumstances, the criminal miscellaneous petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Patiala, shall be admitted to bail. Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is disposed of. (S.S. SARON) January 04, 2011 JUDGE sukhpreet