CRM-M/64956/2023 of SATINDER SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB on 22 December 2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA ATCHANDIGARH

CRM-M-64956-2023Date of decision: - 22.12.7023

Satinder Singh

...Petitioner

0#-)1)

State of Punjab

...ReSpondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL

Present: Mr. S.S. Rangi, Advocatefor the petitioner.

Mr. Ferry Sofat, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.8888

VIKAS BAHL, J. (QRAL)

1,This is the first petition under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. forgrant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in case bearing FIR No.81 dated18.07.2023, under Sections 452, 307, 323, 506, 148 and 149 IPC andsection 25 of the Arms Act, 1959, registered at Police Station AnajMandi, District Patiala.

? Brief facts of the case are that the above-said FIR wasregistered on the statement of Lakhwinder Singh @ Lakha, in which, thepetitioner was specifically named. A perusal of the FIR would show thatthere was apparently a dispute with respect to installing of a gate by thecomplainant party to which, the party of Ranjodh Singh (to which thepetitioner belonged to) was unhappy and the said Ranjodh Singh alongwith the petitioner and other large number of persons went into the houseof the complainant, thus, committing criminal trespass and it has been

-).

2023:PHHC: 16534

alleged in the FIR that the petitioner was carrying a .12 bore gun in hishands and thereafter, it has been specifically alleged against the petitionerthat he had fired a shot with intention to kill Amarjit Kaur and the pelletsof the fire hit her left leg. In the incident, four persons were injured,namely, Amarjit Kaur, Mehal Singh, Gursewak Singh and complainantLakhwinder Singh @ Lakha. A perusal of MLR (Annexure P-4) of theinjured Amarjit Kaur, with respect to whom a specific injury has beenattributed to the present petitioner, would show that she had sutferedlacerated wound of size 0.8 cm x 0.4 cm with fresh bleeding from thewound present over the front of left leg. It is the case of the petitioner inthe present petition that he had a .12 bore gun although, it is stated thatthe petitioner has a license (Annexure P-5) for the same. The petitionerapplied for the concession of anticipatory bail before the AdditionalSessions Judge, Patiala and the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala, tookinto consideration the fact that the petitioner along with other accused hadtrespassed into the house of the complainant and had inflicted injuries onthe said four persons and the injuries on the person of Gursewak Singhwas from fire arm and was ona vital part i.e. jaw and Lakhwinder Singhhad suffered injuries on the chest and little finger of the right hand andMehal Singh had suffered injuries on the right shoulder and right elbowand Amarjit Kaur had suffered fire arm injuries on her left leg, which wasattributed to the present petitioner. It was further observed that thepetitioner was involved in another case i.e. FIR No.34 dated 01.03.2021,under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Actand thus, the anticipatory bail application of the petitioner was rejected.

-3-2023:PHHC: 16534

Thereafter, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the presentpetition after a period of five months from the date of registration of theFIR and more than two months from the date of dismissal of theanticipatory bail by the Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. A perusal ofthe petition would show that the petitioner in addition to FIR No.34 dated01.03.2021, is also involved in FIR No.56 dated 16.06.2023.

onLearned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that thepetitioner has been falsely implicated in the present FIR and has statedthat as per the FIR, the petitioner has been attributed an injury with .12bore gun in his hand while he was on the roof and the said injury has beeninflicted on Amarjit Kaur, who was stated to be standing in the courtyard,whereas, as per the MLR, the direction of the wound is from the lowerend (towards ankle) to upper end (knee). It is stated that in case the saidinjury has been caused by the petitioner, then, the injury would have beendownwards. It is further stated that one of the reasons given in the orderrejecting anticipatory bail to the petitioner is that the .12 bore gun is yet tobe recovered from the petitioner, which he is ready to surrender. It is alsosubmitted that another co-accused i.e., Sardool Singh was also armedwith a .12 bore gun and thus, the question as to from whose gun the saidinjury has been inflicted on Amarjit Kaur, would be a matter of trial.

4 This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and hasgone through the paperbook and finds that petitioner does not deserve theconcession of anticipatory bail.

5In the FIR, there are specific allegations against the petitionerto the effect that he, along with the other co-accused, had entered into the

-4.

2023:PHHC: 16534

house of the complainant and had thus|prima faciecommitted the offenceunder Section 452 IPC. It is further specifically alleged against thepetitioner that he was armed with .12 bore gun and had fired a shot withthe intention to kill Amarjit Kaur wife of Malak Singh and the said pelletshit her left leg. MLR (Annexure P-4) of Amarjit Kaur would also showthat the said Amarjit Kaur had suffered a gun shot injury on her leit leg,The fact that the petitioner has .12 bore gun is also|prima facieclear fromthe licence (Annexure P-5), which has been annexed by the petitioner toShow that the said gun is a licensed gun. Since there are specificallegations against the petitioner with respect to having caused gun shotinjury on the person of Amarjit Kaur, thus, the Additional Sessions Judge,Patiala, vide order dated 16.10.2023 had rightly dismissed theanticipatory bail of the petitioner. The petitioner has been evading hisarrest, inasmuch as, the present FIR was registered on 18.07.2023 and theanticipatory bail application of the petitioner was dismissed by theAdditional Sessions Judge, Patiala on 16.10.2023 and the present petitionhas been filed after a period of more than five months from the date of theFIR and more than two months from the date of passing of the order dated16.10.2023. The petitioner is involved in two other FIRs 1.e. FIR No.34dated 01.03.2021, under Section 18 of the Narcotic Drugs & PsychotropicSubstances Act and FIR No.56 dated 16.06.2023, under Section 323, 341,506, 148 and 149 IPC and is thus, a habitual offender. The arguments oflearned counsel for the petitioner to the effect that Sardool Singh (co-accused of the petitioner) was also armed with .12 bore gun and thequestion as to who had fired a gun shot on Amarjit Kaur, is a matter of

debate, would not further the case of the petitioner, inasmuch, a perusal ofpage 21 of the paperbook would show that in the FIR, it has beenspecifically alleged that Sardool Singh with the .12 bore gun in his handhad fired a shot at the complainant and the pellet of the gun had hit himon his chest, whereas, with respect to Amarjit Kaur, there is a specificattribution against the petitioner. It has been recorded by the AdditionalSessions Judge, Patiala that in addition to the injured Amarjit Kaur,injuries had been suffered by Gursewak Singh, complainant LakhwinderSingh @ Lakha on the chest and little finger of the right hand and also byMehal Singh. Even the other arguments raised by learned counsel for thepetitioner would not entitle the petitioner to the concession of anticipatorybail since there are specific allegations against the petitioner and theoffences committed by the petitioner along with the other co-accused, asper the case of the prosecution, are serious and thus, the custodialinterrogation of the petitioner is necessary.

6 Keeping|in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, thepresent petitioner does not deserve the concession of anticipatory bail andthus, the present petition is dismissed.

yd.However,nothing stated above shall be construed as a finalexpression of opinion on the merits of the case and the trial wouldproceed independently of the observations made in the present case whichare only for the purpose of adjudicating the present petition.

( VIKAS BAHL )December 22, 2023JUDGEnaresh.kWhether reasoned/speaking?Yes/NoWhether reportable?Yes/No