Partly allowed

Balvir Singh @ Dani v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Sept 2009CRM-M/21133/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single-judge High Court disposed of seven bail petitions involving petitioners allegedly involved in the rescue of a criminal in police custody. The court granted bail to some petitioners without specific injuries attributed to them while dismissing others who caused grievous hurt or were armed.

What did the court decide?

Bail granted to Balvir Singh alias Dani and Bakhtaur Singh alias Sonu Kang; granted to Surjit Singh alias Shinda and Barinderpal Singh alias Binda conditionally; dismissed for Iqbal Singh alias Pal, P

Balvir Singh @ Dani Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

Criminal Misc. No. M-21133 of 2009

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Criminal Misc. No. M-21133 of 2009 Date of decision : October 23, 2009

¶5

Balvir Singh alias Dani

....Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

....Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. AS Gill, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG Punjab

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

By this common order, I am disposing of seven petitions bearing Criminal Misc. No. M-21133 of 2009, filed by Balvir Singh alias Dani, Criminal Misc. No. M-25504 of 2009, filed by Iqbal Singh alias Pal, Criminal Misc. No. M-28550 of 2009, filed by Palwinder Singh alias Pinda, Criminal Misc. No. M-28233 of 2009, filed by Rajdev Singh, Criminal Misc. No. M-23924 of 2009, filed by Bakhtaur Singh alias Sonu Kang, Criminal Misc. No. M-24838 of 2009, filed by Surjit Singh alias Shinda alias Ginda and Surjit Singh alias Gheeta and Criminal Misc. No. M-26590 of 2009, filed by Barinderpal Singh alias Binda, all seeking bail in case FIR No. 20 dated 30.1.2009, under sections 307, 224, 324, 353, 186, 333, 332,

¶15

Criminal Misc. No. M-21133 of 2009

¶16

-2-

¶17

427, 148, 149 IPC and section 25 of Arms Act, Police Station Sadar Kapurthala.

¶18

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶19

case file.

¶20

According to the prosecution version, police party comprising of HC Balkar Singh, HC Sukhwinder Singh and HC Labh Singh were escorting Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga, an accused in one NDPS case, in custody from District Jail, Kapurthala to court at Nakodar, by bus. On the way, the bus halted for alighting passengers. Meanwhile, a Tavera vehicle blocked the way of the bus. Two persons from the said vehicle holding guns entered the bus and asked bus driver on gun point to keep the bus halted. Some persons were already sitting in the bus who were part of the gang to rescue Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga from the custody. The persons sitting in the bus threw red chillies powder in the eyes of HC Sukhwinder Singh as well as HC Balkar Singh. The said persons were also holding datars. They inflicted blows to HC Labh Singh and HC Sukhwinder Singh with intent to kill them. Labh Singh was injured seriously. He even suffered grievous hurt with sharp weapon. Some of the persons even fired at the bus and also from the Tavera vehicle. Accused Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga was taken away from the police custody along with handcuffs.

¶21

At the outset, it may be mentioned that learned counsel for all the petitioners contended that their co-accused Manjit Singh alias Kala has been granted bail vide order dated 26.5.2009, Annexure P/3. However, in that case it was observed that there is dispute regarding identity of the petitioner. Learned State counsel, on instructions from ASI Sarbjit Singh, however contended that all the eight petitioners herein refused to join test

¶22

Criminal Misc. No. M-21133 of 2009

¶23

-3-

¶24

identification parade. So, at this stage, these petitioners cannot raise the dispute of their identity.

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that all the eight petitioners are in custody since 28.2.2009. This fact is not disputed by learned State counsel after seeking instructions.

¶26

Learned counsel for petitioner Balvir Singh alias Dani contended that no injury has been attributed to this petitioner. Learned State counsel after seeking instructions contended that although no specific injury has been attributed to this petitioner even by the injured witnesses, yet it was not possible to state injuries caused by so many persons. Here it may be mentioned that Sukhwinder Singh suffered three injuries and Labh Singh suffered eight injuries.

¶27

Keeping in view the fact that no injury has been specifically attributed to the petitioner and he is in custody for almost eight months and trial is likely to take time and Manjit Singh has already been granted bail, Criminal Misc. No.M-21133 of 2009 filed by Balbir Singh is allowed. Bail to him to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

¶28

Iqbal Singh alias Pal petitioner in Criminal Misc. No. M-25504 of 2009 is said to have caused grievous hurt with sharp weapon to HC Labh Singh falling within the purview of section 326/333 IPC. Consequently, in my view, Iqbal Singh alias Pal does not deserve the concession of bail. His bail petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶29

Petitioner Palwinder Singh alias Pinda is said to have fired from pistol, although no specific injury is attributed to him. However, since he was allegedly armed with pistol and also fired from the same, this

¶30

Criminal Misc. No. M-21133 of 2009

¶31

-4-

¶32

petitioner also does not deserve the concession of bail. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. No. M-28550 of 2009 filed by Palwinder Singh alias Pinda is dismissed.

¶33

Rajdev Singh petitioner was armed with gun although he did not fire from the same. However, he is also nephew of Dilbagh Singh alias Bagga, the accused in custody who was rescued. In my view, Rajdev Singh also does not deserve the concession of bail. Accordingly, Criminal Misc. No. M-28233 of 2009 filed by Rajdev Singh is dismissed.

¶34

Bakhtaur Singh alias Sonu Kang petitioner has not been ascribed any specific injury, although he was armed with sword. Consequently, for reasons specified for granting bail to Balvir Singh alias Dani, Bakhtaur Singh alias Sonu Kang is also allowed bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala. Criminal Misc. No. M-23924 of 2009 is accordingly allowed.

¶35

In Criminal Misc. No. M-24838 of 2009, petitioner no. 2 Surjit Singh alias Gheeta son of Gurnam Singh allegedly threw red chillies powder in the eyes of police officials. He, therefore, does not deserve the concession of bail. However, no specific role has been attributed to petitioner no. 1 Surjit Singh alias Shinda alias Ginda son of Kulwinder Singh. Consequently, for reasons specified for granting bail to Balbir Singh alias Dani, the instant bail petition bearing Criminal Misc. No. M- 24838 of 2009 qua petitioner no. 1 is allowed. Bail to him to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala.

¶36

Petitioner Barinderpal Singh alias Binda has also not been attributed any specific injury although he was allegedly armed with datar.

¶37

Criminal Misc. No. M-21133 of 2009

¶38

-5-

¶39

Consequently, for reasons specified for granting bail to Balvir Singh alias Dani, Barinderpal Singh alias Binda is also allowed bail to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, Kapurthala. Criminal Misc. No. M-26590 of 2009 is accordingly allowed.

¶40

Nothing observed hereinabove shall have any bearing on the

¶41

merits of the case.

¶42

October 23, 2009 ' dalbir'

¶43

( L.N. Mittal ) Judge

Balvir Singh @ Dani v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Balvir Singh @ Dani v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gulshan Khurana Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Chhaju Ram and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Sikander Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab

Sidh Giri Vs State of Punjab

Boota Singh etc. Vs State of Punjab etc.

Amrik Singh Vs State of Punjab