IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl. Misc. No. M-24167 of 2009 Date of decision : 14.12.2009 Charanpal …. Petitioner Versus State of Punjab …. Respondent Present: Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, Senior Advocate for the petitioner with Mr. R.S. Chahal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Grewal, AAG, Punjab. Mr. IPS Kohli, 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 302, 325, 323, 148 and 149 IPC registered at Police Station Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The FIR in the case has been registered on the statement of Gurdit Singh. On 31.8.2007 at about 7.00 p.m. the complainant was going towards his house from the cattle shed after feeding fodder to the cattle. Joga Singh and Didar Singh had gone before him. The complainant when he started to lock the gate of the cattle shed, at that time the light went off. Joga Singh and Didar Singh started seeing the fuse of transformer. The complainant then saw Charanpal (petitioner) and his brothers Bhag Singh and Prem Singh armed with Gandasi each, Harjinder Singh @ Laadi and his brother Harkirat Singh @ Kala sons of Charanpal Singh (petitioner) armed with Crl. Misc. No. M-24167 of 2009 [2] Kulhari each. Prem Singh on seeing the brothers of the complainant raised a lalkara exhorting Charanpal (petitioner) that today was occasion that Joga Singh and Didar Singh should not escape. After that, Charanpal Singh (petitioner) gave a ‘gandasi’ blow on the head of Didar Singh, brother of the complainant and Bhag Singh gave a ‘gandasi’ blow which also hit on the head of Didar Singh. Harjinder Singh @ Laadi gave a ‘kulhari’ blow on the head of Joga Singh and Prem Singh also gave a ‘gandasi’ blow on the head of Joga Singh which hit him on his forehead. Harkirat Singh @ Kala gave a ‘kulhari’ blow on the right arm of Joga Singh. Then a lalkara was raised by Prem Singh. Charanpal Singh (petitioner) and Bhag Singh after pushing the complainant, inflicted more injuries to Joga Singh and Didar Singh. The complainant then raised a cry of ‘mar dita mar dita’. Harjit Singh son of Gurbax Singh came at the place of occurrence and raised an alarm. The assailants after hearing noise ran away. The injured were got admitted at Civil Hospital, Fatehgarh Sahib where they were referred to Sector-32, Hospital, Chandigarh. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner is in custody for the last two and a half years and therefore, he is entitled to the concession of bail. Learned State counsel and the counsel for the complainant have submitted that all the material witnesses have been examined and some officials witnesses and one Harjang Singh only remain to be examined. The case is fixed for trial on 16.2.2010 and 17.2.2010. It is submitted that a long date has been given on 2.12.2009 as counsel for the defence was not available. Crl. Misc. No. M-24167 of 2009 [3] After giving my thoughtful consideration to the matter, it may be noticed that the case in fact is being delayed on account of adjournments and adjustments given to the learned counsel for the defence. On 3.11.2009, statement of SI Sadhu Ram, Police Line, Fatehgarh Sahib was recorded. The cross-examination was deferred as the accused stated that due to Punjab Bandh, their defence counsel had not turned up because of non-availability of transport. SI Sadhu Ram was then cross-examined and further cross-examination was deferred by the trial Court. It was observed that other cases have also to be taken up and one and a half hours had been taken by the learned defence counsel. He stated that during the second session, he had to attend a Bhog ceremony and would not be available. The case was then adjourned to 2.12.2009 at 12’O Clock, as per the convenience of the learned defence counsel. On 2.12.2009, SI Sadhu Ram was further cross-examined and the following order was passed:- “Cross-examination of PW SI Sahdu Ram completed. No other PW is present. Remaining PWs be now summoned for 16.2.2010. The long date has to be given as the defence counsel comes from Patiala. He comes only once in a week i.e. on Tuesday as no other day is suitable for him. In December and January, already a number of trials have been fixed and this case cannot be adjusted particularly for Tuesday. However, in order to expedite the trial of Crl. Misc. No. M-24167 of 2009 [4] this case, it is ordered that remaining witnesses who remained to be examined shall be recorded by conducting the trial on day to day basis. The case will be taken up on 17.2.2010 and the learned defence counsel has been apprised of this fact as it will not be possible to accommodate him, in case the entire evidence is not concluded on 16.2.2010.” A perusal of the above shows that the case has now been adjourned to 16.2.2010 and 17.2.2010 and the long date has been given as the defence counsel comes only on Tuesday and no other day is suitable for him. Therefore, it is evident that there is no delay on the part of the prosecution. In any case it is hoped that the prosecution witnesses would be present on 16.2.2010 and 17.2.2010. The earlier application for bail has been declined by this Court on 7.5.2009 (Annexure P1). In the circumstances, no ground for regular bail is made out at this stage. Accordingly, the Crl. Misc. petition is dismissed. It is, however, hoped that the trial of the case is concluded by the learned trial Court as expeditiously as possible. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE December 14, 2009 amit