IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-18451 of 2009 Date of decision : September 23, 2009 Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present : Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Gill, DAG, Punjab. **** S.S. SARON, J. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 302, 382 and 34 Indian Penal Code (“IPC” – for short). The FIR in the case has been recorded on the statement of Wariyam Chand - complainant who has alleged that his younger son Paramjit Singh @ Gopu who runs a mobile phone shop at Banda Bahadur Nagar Pharma Road, Ludhiana had returned home at 8.00 p.m. after closing his shop. After parking his motorcycle at home, he went out at 8.10 p.m.. At about 8.30 p.m., the complainant Wariyam Chand was informed by his neighbour Surinder Singh @ Chhinda that his son Paramjit Singh @ Gopu was lying in an injured condition near the school. On this, the complainant Crl. Misc. No. M-18451 of 2009 [2] Wariyam Chand along with his other son Som Chand went to Government Primary School, Pharma and found Paramjit Singh @ Gopu lying in a pool of blood. He had injuries on the left side of his chest and on the head near the ear. In the meantime, Surjit Singh and Ravi Shukla reached there. Thereafter, the complainant Wariyam Chand took his son Paramjit Singh @ Gopu on the motorcycle of Ravi Shukla to the CMC Hospital for treatment. When they reached hospital, Paramjit Singh @ Gopu succumbed to his injuries at the gate of the hospital. It is alleged that Paramjit Singh @ Gopu had been murdered with sharp edged weapon by unknown persons. The petitioner filed an application for grant of bail which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 23.6.2007 (Annexure P1). It was observed that as per the record, Paramjit Singh son of the complainant Wariyam Singh was killed by some unknown persons. However, during investigation an extra judicial confession was made by the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju and his co-accused Chandan. Moreover, the blood- stained cloth of the accused petitioner and Chandan had been recovered during investigation. Besides, the weapon of offence i.e. a ‘Chhura’ (knife) had been recovered from the co-accused Chandan. Accordingly, no ground for grant of bail was found. The petitioner then filed Crl. Misc. No.M-44380 of 2007 which was dismissed by this Court on 16.10.2007. Thereafter, the petitioner has filed the present petition. In terms of the order dated 16.10.2007 passed in Crl. Misc. No. M-44380 of 2007 declining bail to the petitioner, it was observed that the petitioner had made an extra-judicial confession before Gurwinder Singh Bajwa @ Bindi which is to the effect that the accused had tried to snatch the mobile phone of Paramjit Singh @ Gopu who resisted. They then snatched the mobile phone after attacking him with a knife. Thereafter, they threw Crl. Misc. No. M-18451 of 2009 [3] away the chip of the mobile phone and sold it for Rs.1600/-. In the meantime, they learnt that Paramjit Singh had died and they had committed a mistake. The blood-stained clothes of the petitioner were recovered from the petitioner himself. Besides, the knife that was used in the occurrence was recovered on the disclosure statement of Chandan. It was also observed that it had come on record that he had been involved in the commission of murder of Paramjit Singh @ Gopu and there is no reason for the police to falsely implicate him. The evidence that is primarily against the petitioner is that he made an extra- judicial confession before Gurwinder Singh Bajwa @ Bindi. The statement of Gurwinder Singh Bajwa @ Bindi has been recorded by the trial Court on 7.8.2009 and he was cross-examined on 10.8.2009. The certified copies of the examination-in-chief and the cross-examination have been placed on record. It is stated by Gurwinder Singh Bajwa @ Bindi that on 24.2.2007 he was present in his house when the petitioner Sanjeev Kumar @ Sanju and Chandan came to him and made an extra-judicial confession that on 9.2.2007, they were tying to snatch the mobile from Paramjit Singh @ Gopu who offered resistance to them and they gave him ‘chhura’ (knife) blows and snatched away his mobile from him. They further confessed before him that they had sold the said mobile in the market. They had also disclosed that later they came to know that Paramjit Singh @ Gopu to whom ‘chhura’ (knife) blows were given had succumbed to his injuries. They requested him (Gurwinder Singh –PW7) to produce them before the police as he had cordial relations with the police. Gurwinder Singh asked them to come on the next morning. He kept on waiting for them but they did not turn up. After that he went to the police and got his statement recorded. In his cross-examination, it is stated that on 24.2.2007, he was not Sarpanch, Panchayat member or the Lambardar of the village. He accepted that a case under Section 302 IPC was Crl. Misc. No. M-18451 of 2009 [4] registered against him but he was acquitted in that case. He had remained in jail for a period of 2 years and three months. It is also stated by him that he appeared as an extra-judicial witness in case FIR No.69 of 8.4.2006 registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC at Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. He then volunteered that the accused was convicted for life imprisonment in the case. It was correct that Ex.DA was his statement in that case in the Court. In his statement Ex.DA, it is stated that he had not given any statement in case FIR No.24 dated 9.2.2007 registered for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the police might have recorded his statement of its own. He was confronted with the portion A to A1 of Ex.DA where it is so recorded. The accused came to him at about 8 p.m. and remained with him for about 20 minutes. On 25.2.2007, he had gone to the Police Station to get his statement recorded after waiting for the accused. He met the SHO in the evening of 25.2.2007. He did not see the accused in the Police Station at that time. He denied the suggestion as incorrect that he was a stock witness of Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana. He also denied as incorrect that he appeared as a stock witness in many other cases. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner Gurwinder Singh (PW7) in fact is a stock witness and has appeared in several cases, besides, the statement made by him does not inspire confidence. In my opinion, this aspect would require to be considered and gone into by the trial Court after completing the evidence. However, the statement of Gurwinder Singh (PW-7) before whom the petitioner is stated to have made an extra-judicial confession has since been recorded. The petitioner would not be in a position to tamper with his evidence. The petitioner has been in custody since 28.2.2007. Crl. Misc. No. M-18451 of 2009 [5] Learned counsel for the State on instructions from ASI Varinderjit Singh Police Station Salem Tabri, Ludhiana has stated that nine more witnesses remained to be examined in this case. The trial in the case is likely to take time. The petitioner has been in custody for the last about 2 years 7 months. Therefore, it would be just and expedient that the petitioner is granted the concession of bail as the trial is not nearing completion. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is allowed and the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ludhiana shall be admitted to bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE September 23, 2009 amit