IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M- 2448 of 2009 Date of decision: March 3, 2009 Paramveer Singh @ Phana ….. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ….. Respondent Present: Mr. Suresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.S. Sidhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab. Mr. Johny Vij, Advocate for the complainant. *** 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 307/34 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Sukhraj Singh @ Nikka. In the incident that occurred on 20.11.2008, it has been alleged that Jugraj Singh @ Jajji @ Sewak Singh was driving a motorcycle and Chamkaur Singh was sitting on the pillion seat. Besides, on the second motorcycle, Kaka of Chehlan was driving and Paramveer Singh @ Phana (petitioner) was sitting on the pillion seat and they came there. Both of them stopped the motorcycle of the complainant after seeing them in the street light. The time was around 6.00 p.m. Then Chamkaur Singh and Paramveer Singh @ Phana (petitioner) who were armed with pistols pointed their weapons towards the complainant side. Before saying anything, Paramveer Singh @ Phana (petitioner) fired a shot towards the complainant with an intention to kill him. The pellets of the shot fired by the petitioner hit the left thigh of the complainant Sukhraj Singh @ Nikka. Crl. Misc. No. M- 2448 of 2009 [2] Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact the offence under Section 307 IPC is not made out as the injury is on the non-vital part and there was no intention on the part of the petitioner to kill the complainant Sukhraj Singh @ Nikka. It is also submitted that the matter has been compromised and on the last date of hearing, the counsel for the petitioner had taken time to produce the complainant in Court. It is submitted that the complainant is present in Court and is represented by his counsel. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that keeping in view the role attributed to the petitioner i.e. of firing with the gun which hit the complainant, the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. Learned counsel for the complainant, Mr. Johny Vij, Advocate has submitted on instructions from the complainant that the matter has been compromised. It is submitted that being co-villagers, the petitioner be granted the concession of bail so that both the parties can live in the village in a peaceful atmosphere. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the question whether offence under Section 307 IPC is made out or not is not to be gone into at this stage and it is to be considered by the trial Court at an appropriate stage. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the challan in the case has been filed on 17.2.2009 and the case is pending for consideration of charge. It may however be noticed that the injury attributed to the petitioner on the person of the complainant is on the left thigh where the pellets hit the complainant. The complainant has submitted that the matter has been compromised and for peaceful living in the village, the petitioner may be granted the concession of bail. Crl. Misc. No. M- 2448 of 2009 [3] In view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner on his furnishing personal bond and surety to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala shall be admitted to bail. The petitioner in addition to the surety to be furnished shall furnish an undertaking of a respectable of his village to the satisfaction of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Barnala undertaking the maintenance of good behaviour and peace by the petitioner while he is on bail. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE March 3, 2009 amit