Dismissed

Jasbir Singh v. State of Haryana

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Jul 2013CRM-M/19768/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the Court dismissed the plea. Relying on prima facie evidence from the FIR, post-mortem, and trial court summons indicating murder and membership in an unlawful assembly, the judge found merit insufficient to grant bail. The decision was limited to the bail petition.

What did the court decide?

The petition for anticipatory bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. was dismissed.

Jasbir Singh Vs State of Haryana — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

¶2

CRM No.M-19768 of 2013

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM No.M-19768 of 2013 Date of Decision:01.07.2013

¶5

Jasbir Singh .....Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana .....Respondent

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Bijender Dhankhar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶9

Mr.Sameer Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondent-State.

¶10

¶11

MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR , J.(oral)

¶12

The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by Jasbir Singh son of Baljeet Singh, as claimed by the prosecution is that, Krishan(deceased) son of complainant-Pala Ram, was convicted on account of fight with his neighbourer Babli etc. He was released on bail by this Court. On 28.08.2011, complainant-Pala Ram and his son Krishan had boarded a bus from village Salwan to reach Panipat. At about 5.15 PM as soon as, the bus reached near the fields of Kalu Ram Gosain, in the meantime, accused Babli son of Balbir Singh & Sahab Singh son of Baljit Singh armed with swords, petitioner-accused Jasbir Singh armed with a knife, Moni son of Sahab Singh and Manbir Rana son of Dharam Pal armed with wooden handles(Binda) were standing on the road. All of them stopped and entered into the bus.

¶13

CRM No.M-19768 of 2013 2

¶14

Accused-Sahab Singh had thrown chilly powder in the eyes of Krishan and dragged him from the bus. All the accused caught hold of him and caused injuries with swords, knife and wooden handles(Binda), causing his(Krishan) death. Thereafter, all the accused decamped from the place of occurrence along with their respective weapons. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of complainant-Pala Ram, the present criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co-accused, vide FIR No.514 dated 28.08.2011, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 302, 341, 323, 148 and 149 IPC, by the police of Police Station Assandh, District Karnal, in the manner depicted here-in-above.

¶15

Having exercised and remained unsuccessful in the Court of Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has preferred the present petition for the grant of anticipatory bail in the indicated case, invoking the provisions of Section 438 Cr.P.C.

¶16

Notice of the petition was issued to the State.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after deep consideration of the entire matter, to my mind, there is no merit in the instant petition in this context.

¶18

Ex facie, the argument of the learned counsel that, since the petitioner was found innocent by the police and was subsequently summoned by the trial Court, by way of order dated 02.05.2013 (Annexure P-1) under Section 319 Cr.P.C., so, he is entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced

¶19

¶20

CRM No.M-19768 of 2013

¶21

as well.

¶22

As is evident from the record that, there are direct allegations that the petitioner and his other co-accused formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons and caused injuries with their respective weapons culminating into the death of Krishan. The mere fact that the petitioner was exonerated by the police ipso facto is not a ground, much less cogent, to grant the concession of anticipatory bail to the present petitioner in a murder case, particularly when the trial Court finding prima facie evidence has summoned the petitioner-accused, by means of

¶23

order(Annexure P-1), which in substance is as under:-

¶24

“In the first information report as well as in the statement of complainant on oath, it is mentioned that Jasbir was also one of the assailants and he was having a knife in his hand and caused injuries to the deceased along with other assailants. There is specific allegations that all the assailants, after alighting the deceased from the bus, attacked him with sword, knives and wooden handle. Post-mortem report also proves that one incised wound was found on the dead body at the time of post-mortem examination of the deceased. Since one incised wound was found which could also be the result of injury with the knife, so prima facie there is sufficient evidence to prove that Jasbir was also one of the assailants. All the assailants were members of an unlawful assembly and post-mortem report proves that the deceased was having 16 injuries and one was stitched wound. All the injuries except one were lacerated wound. So, it is also prima facie proves that the deceased was caused injuries by many persons and since the name of the petitioner also finds mention in the FIR along with the other accused, who have been challaned by the police, so even if it is presumed that Jasbir petitioner did not cause any injury, but being the member of unlawful assembly and having the knife in his hand at time of incident, he is responsible for the murder of the deceased also. Statement of the complainant also corroborates the prosecution version in toto. Therefore, the argument of learned defence counsel that no knife injury was found on the body of the deceased, is devoid of any force.

¶25

In the light of the above discussion, since there is prima facie evidence that petitioner Jasbir being the member of an unlawful assembly and in common object of the said unlawful assembly, murdered the deceased, as such prima facie there is sufficient evidence for commission of offence under Sections 148, 323, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 IPC against Jasbir Singh son of Baljit Singh. As such, he be summoned as an additional accused for commission of the aforesaid offences, through non-bailable warrant for 28.05.2013.”

¶26

Not only that, the perusal of post-mortem report(Annexure

¶27

CRM No.M-19768 of 2013 4

¶28

P-3) would reveal that, the deceased suffered as many as seventeen multiple injuries on his person. Therefore, taking into consideration the specific role assigned to the present petitioner that he was a member of an unlawful assembly, they caused injuries culminating into the death of the deceased, to my mind, he is not entitled to the concession of anticipatory bail in the obtaining circumstances of the case.

¶29

In the light of aforesaid reasons and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it may prejudice the case of either side during the course of the trial of the main case, as there is no merit, therefore, the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed as such.

¶30

Needless to mention that nothing observed, here-in-above, would reflect, in any manner, on merits of the main case, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for

¶31

anticipatory bail.

¶32

July 01, 2013 ( M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR) seema JUDGE

Jasbir Singh v. State of Haryana

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jasbir Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Krishen Goel Vs Vijay Bhardwaj and Anr.

Gurmukh Singh Benipal Vs Harish Anand and Another

Dalbir Singh Vs Rajat Aggarwal

Jagdish Vs Balwan

Gian Chand Vs Siri Ram etc.

Sata Nand Vs Ram Narain and Ors.