CRM-M- 23936 of 2011 1 In the Punjab and Haryana High Court, at Chandigarh. CRM-M- 23936 of 2011 Decided on Sept 20,2011 Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder Singh --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent AND CRM-M- 25646 of 2011 Decided on Sept 20,2011 Sukhpal Singh @ Pala --Petitioner vs. State of Punjab --Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present: Mr.Parminder Singh-I, Advocate, for the petitioner (s) Mr.K.D.Sachdeva, Addl.A.G, Punjab Mr.B.S.Sra,Advocate, for the complainant Rakesh Kumar Jain,J:(Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CRM-M- 23936 of 2011 (Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder Singh Vs. State of Punjab) and CRM-M-25646 of 2011 (Sukhpal Singh @ Pala Vs. State of Punjab), in which both the petitioners have prayed for regular bail pending trial in a case registered vide FIR No.99 dated 02.12.2010, under Sections 302,307,34 of the IPC and Sections 27/54/59 of Arms Act at Police Station Sadar Bathinda, District Bathinda. CRM-M- 23936 of 2011 2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that they are in custody from 15.5.2011. It is further submitted that initially, the case was registered under Sections 307/34 of the IPC as the deceased Jarnail Singh was got injured at the hands of Balraj Singh who had used his gun and fired at him which landed on his left leg and left arm. At that time, the petitioners had applied for pre arrest bail before the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Bathinda, which was allowed on 17.2.2010 with the following observations:- “It is a case of version and cross version. Cross version under Section 452,323,324,148,149 of IPC has also been registered at the statement of mother of the petitioners namely Lakhbir Kur. She received three injuries at the hands of complainant party of this case. It is yet to be seen as to which party was aggressor and which had acted in self defence. As per cross version both petitioners were not present at the time of occurrence. No injury is attributed to any of them. Main accused Balraj Singh has already been arrested and gun used in the commission of the offence has also been recovered from him. Only 'Lalkara' is attributed to petitioner Pala Singh whereas Binder Singh has been shown to be present there armed with a stick. No other role is attributed to them. So after considering entire facts and circumstances of this case, a case is made out in favour of Sukhpal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh petitioners for concession of anticipatory bail. So in the event of arrest petitioner Sukhpal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh shall be released on anticipatory bail on their turn, personal bonds in the sum of `30,000/- for each with one surety the like amount to the satisfaction of Arresting Officer/SHO subject to the following conditions”. It is submitted that Jarnail Singh expired on 2.3.2011 after three months of the date of occurrence which took place on 2.12.2010 because of septicemia. It is argued by the learned State Counsel assisted by the learned counsel for the complainant that the petitioners have played active role in CRM-M- 23936 of 2011 3 the aforesaid crime as petitioner Sukhpal Singh alias Pala had given a lalkara because of which the incident had started and presence of Sukhwinder Singh @ Binder Singh petitioner with stick emboldened Balraj Singh to cause injuries with gun to the deceased. At the same time, learned counsel for the State and the complainant have admitted that the order dated 17.2.2010 by which the petitioners were granted anticipatory bail for the same allegations that they had given a lalkara and were present with stick has not been challenged by them before the higher Court. The cause of death of Jarnail Singh is a moot point in this case. Taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case but without making any observations on the merit, the present petitions are allowed and the petitioners are directed to be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court, who shall be at liberty to impose any other condition at the time of releasing them on bail for the purpose of ensuring their presence in the trial of the case. Sept 20,2011 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) RR Judge