The High Court granted regular bail to Karnail Singh in a murder case. The court held that the fatal head injury resulted from a fall and was not attributed to the petitioner, distinguishing him from co-accused who caused injuries. Bail was ordered.
Regular bail was granted to the petitioner to satisfy the CJM/Duty Magistrate, Sangrur.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Crl.M.No.M 2993 of 2010 (O&M)
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Crl.M.No.M 2993 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: March 23, 2010
Karnail Singh
.....Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab
......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA
Present: Mr.R.S.Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Swarn Tiwana, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Gaurav Garg Dhuriwala, AAG, Punjab.
RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral)
The present petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.48, dated 1.6.2008, under Sections 323/341/506/34 IPC, Section 308 IPC added on 5.6.2008, Section 325 IPC added on 19.6.2008 and Section 302 IPC added on 21.6.2008, registered at Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record carefully.
It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that no head injury has been attributed to the petitioner as per the FIR and that only injury attributed to the petitioner is baton blow on the back of the deceased. Further argues that as per allegations in the FIR, head injury was received by fall. It has further been contended that as per medico legal report, there was no visible injury on the head. Further contended that only alleged eye-witness of the occurrence Jawala Singh, i.e. father of the injured-deceased, has already been examined in which he stated that he got recorded in his statement, Ex.D1, that only Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh
-2-
Crl.M.No.M 2993 of 2010 (O&M)
threw Ranjit Singh (deceased) on the road and his head was struck against road by said pushing. Further contended that this witness also stated that he got recorded in his statement, Ex.D1, that Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh also gave danda blows to Ranjit Singh. It has further been contended that petitioner has been continuing in custody since 25.6.2008 and trial of the case is likely to take some time to conclude as only 6 out of 36 witnesses have been examined so far. Further argues that similarly placed co-accused, namely, Tak Singh, has already been granted regular bail by this Court in Crl.M.No.M 30389 of 2009 vide order dated 22.1.2010.
Learned State counsel has not been able to controvert the aforementioned facts. However, he has opposed the bail application on the plea that injury has also been attributed to the present petitioner-accused.
I have considered the aforementioned facts.
The case of present petitioner is similar to the case of coaccused Tek Singh, who has already been granted bail by this Court. The alleged head injury, resulting into the death of Ranjit Singh, was received by fall. The same has not been attributed to the present petitioner. As per deposition of PW Jawala Singh, father of injured, Avtar Singh and Balkar Singh threw Ranjit Singh on the road and his head was struck on the road by said pushing. The only injury attributed to the present petitioner is simple injury with baton on the back of the deceased. He has been continuing in custody since 25.6.2008. Trial will take some time to conclude.
Hence, in view of these facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition for regular bail filed by petitioner- Karnail Singh is accepted.
Bail to the satisfaction of CJM/Duty Magistrate, Sangrur.
(Ram Chand Gupta) Judge
23.3.2010 meenu
3 issues framed by the court
whether regular bail should be granted to the petitioner in a murder case where the fatal injury was caused by fall and not by the petitioner.
whether the petitioner should be released on bail considering the injury attributed to him was only a baton blow on the back of the deceased.
whether the case warrants continued custody despite co-accused being granted bail.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Crl.M.No.M 30389 of 2009Explained¶19
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Karnail Singh
State of Punjab
RAM CHAND GUPTA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
