Partly allowed

Shish Pal v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC6 Sept 2011CRM-M/11243/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court disposed of three bail applications arising from an FIR involving a fatal affray. Pre-arrest bail was denied to one petitioner upon surrender, while regular bail was granted to three others accused of membership in an unlawful assembly, though it was denied to one specific petitioner in that group.

What did the court decide?

Pre-arrest bail dismissed; regular bail allowed for Dalbir and Satbir; regular bail allowed for Ravinder alias Kala; bail application by Krishan dismissed as withdrawn.

Shish Pal Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

Date of decision: September 06, 2011.

¶4

(1) Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011. (O&M)

Shish Pal

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana.

¶9

.. Respondent

¶10

¶11

(2) Crl.Misc. No.M-18049 of 2011. (O&M)

¶12

Krishan and others

¶13

.. Petitioners

¶14

VERSUS

¶15

State of Haryana.

¶16

.. Respondent

¶17

¶18

(3) Crl.Misc. No.M-18519 of 2011. (O&M)

Ravinder @ Kala

.. Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana.

¶23

.. Respondent

¶24

. . . 1

¶25

Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

¶27

¶28

PRESENT Mr.Y.P.Malik, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-11243-2011. Mr.Munish Kumar Garg, Advocate, for the petitioners in Crl.Misc.No.M-18049-2011. Mr.Ashwani Gaur, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.Misc.No.M-18519-2011. Ms.Shalini Attri, DAG., Haryana.

¶29

¶30

M.M.S.BEDI, J (ORAL).

¶31

This order will dispose of the above noted three petitions i.e., Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011 , filed by Shishpal under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the grant of pre-arrest bail, Crl.Misc. No.M18049 of 2011, filed by Krishan, Dalbir and Satbir, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. and Crl.Misc. No.M-18519 of 2011 , filed by Ravinder @ Kala under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for the grant of regular bail.

¶32

All the petitions arise out of the same FIR No.4 dated 20.01.2011, under Sections 148, 149, 307, 323 and 302 IPC, and under Sections 25/27/54 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station, Alewa, District Jind.

¶33

The above said FIR was registered on the statement of Mian Singh stating that on 20.01.2011 at about 8:00 PM, Ram Mehar Sarpanch, was getting constructed a street in the shamlat land of the village, leading to temple. When, complainant, Jagat Singh, Amrit and other residents of village were present on the spot, Subhash, Baljit, Krishan (petitioner), Munish, Dalbir (petitioner), Satbir (petitioner), Shishpal (petitioner), two sons of Satbir, Kala (petitioner) and Chhotu, came there armed with Lathis and dandas in

¶34

. . . 2

¶35

Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011

¶36

their hands and told Ram Mehar Sarpanch and others that they would not allow the construction of street from the Shamlat land and started abusing them. Subhash, non-petitioner fired a shot from licenced pistol of Jagat Singh. Baljit also fired a shot on the complainant from his country made pistol hitting him on his left forearm. The remaining persons caused injuries to Jagat Singh, Ram Mehar Sarpanch, and Amrit with their respective weapons. Amrit intervened to save complainant and Jagat Singh. Subhash and Baljit escaped from the spot with their pistols. Jagat Singh was referred to PGIMS, Rohtak, but later on he expired on 20.01.2011 in the hospital.

¶37

So far as Shishpal is concerned, he claims that he is serving in Army and has been named in the FIR by the complainant despite the fact that he was not present on the spot and no injury has been attributed to him.

¶38

Counsel for the State intervened to oppose the application for pre-arrest bail alleging that the petitioner was on leave and was very much present on the spot. There is evidence against the petitioner. Pursuant to the interim orders, the petitioner Shishpal has joined investigation. Though no specific injury has been attributed to the petitioner as per the averments in the FIR but he had been named by few PWs in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. In investigation, it has been found that he was on leave but had subsequently joined duty after the occurrence.

¶39

Without entering into the controversy regarding lathi

¶40

. . . 3

¶41

Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011

¶42

blows reflected as per the post mortem report as lacerations and contusions on the right hand of the deceased, it is sufficient to observe that no extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to the petitioner. The arguments raised by the counsel for the petitioner may constitute good ground to grant the concession of regular bail to the petitioner but no ground is made out to grant the concession of pre-arrest bail to petitioner Shishpal.

¶43

The petition is dismissed.

¶44

So far as Krishan, Dalbir and Satbir are concerned, they seek the concession of regular bail in the above said FIR claiming that they are innocent and have not been attributed any injury and no offence is made out against them. No specific injury with Lathi or danda has been attributed to the present petitioners.

¶45

So far as petitioner Krishan is concerned, he has been attributed a danda blow on the hand of deceased which is allegedly depicted as injury No.4, in the post mortem report. No doubt, gun shot injury is attributed to Subhash on the person of deceased Jagat Singh. Statement of PW Ram Mehar is to the effect that Krishan had inflicted Lathi blow on the hand of deceased Jagat Singh. It will be debatable whether with the aid of Section 149 IPC, he can be said to have committed the offence under Section 302 IPC.

¶46

No ground is made out to grant the concession of bail to the petitioner Krishan.

¶47

. . . 4

¶48

Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011

¶49

So far as Dalbir and Satbir are concerned, they were members of an unlawful assembly but no injury has been attributed to them. They can be granted the concession of bail.

¶50

The petition is allowed qua Dalbir and Satbir petitioners. It is ordered that Dalbir and Satbir will be released on bail on their furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶51

So far as Ravinder alias Kala is concerned, counsel for the petitioner has contended that no doubt he is named in the FIR being present on the spot with Lathi but Ram Mehar has already been examined in the Court. In his statement, he has attributed injury on the hand of deceased to Krishan.

¶52

It is also argued that 9 persons were named in the FIR but 2 were found innocent being not present on the spot indicating that false case has been registered by the complainant.

¶53

I have considered the contention of the counsel for the petitioner and gone through the record. It will be debatable during trial whether on the basis of the evidence led, petitioner Ravinder alias Kala, has caused any injury on the person of deceased or whether as a member of an unlawful assembly, he can be convicted of offence under Section 302 IPC. He can be granted the concession of bail.

¶54

The petition is allowed. It is ordered that petitioner Ravinder @ Kala will be released on bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

¶55

. . . 5

¶56

Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011

¶57

Thus, Crl.Misc. No.M-11243 of 2011, filed by Shishpal under Section 438 Cr.P.C., for the grant of pre-arrest bail is dismissed and Crl.Misc. No.M-18049 of 2011, filed by Krishan, Dalbir and Satbir, under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is allowed qua petitioners Dalbir and Satbir and dismissed qua petitioner Krishan. Crl.Misc. No.M-18519 of 2011, filed by Ravinder @ Kala under Section 439 Cr.P.C., for the grant of regular bail is also allowed.

¶58

At this stage, counsel for the petitioner Krishan

¶59

seeks to withdraw the application for bail on his behalf.

¶60

Dismissed as withdrawn, at this stage.

¶61

(M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE

¶62

September 06, 2011. rka

¶63

. . . 6

Shish Pal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shish Pal v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sagar Singh Vs State of Haryana

Dev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Harbans Singh Vs State of Punjab

Karam Singh Vs State of Punjab

Sanjay & Anr. Vs State of Haryana

Amandip Singh @ Mani Vs State of Punjab