Partly allowed

Pavitar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2013CRM-M/27022/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court refused pre-arrest bail to petitioners Pavitar Singh and others due to prima facie evidence pointing to them as aggressors following alleged FIR manipulation, but granted bail to Baldev Singh in two separate applications.

What did the court decide?

Petitions of Pavitar Singh and others dismissed; petitions of Baldev Singh allowed; order of interim bail made absolute; petitioner Baldev Singh discharged on meeting licensing officer.

Pavitar Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab — Bail and Remand | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-27022, 36117,39805 of 2012 & Crl. Misc. No.M-2051 of 2013 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

1-	Crl. Misc. No.M- 27022 of 2012 Date of decision : 25.01.2013
Pavitar Singh and ors.	......Petitioners
	versus
State of Punjab	...Respondent
2-	Crl. Misc. No.M- 36117 of 2012 Date of decision : 25.01.2013
Balhar Singh and ors.	......Petitioners
	versus
State of Punjab	...Respondent
3-	Crl. Misc. No.M- 39805 of 2012 Date of decision : 25.01.2013
Baldev Singh	......Petitioner
	versus
State of Punjab	...Respondent
4-	Crl. Misc. No.M- 2051 of 2013
	Date of decision : 25.01.2013

¶4

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-27022, 36117,39805 of 2012 & Crl. Misc. No.M-2051 of 2013 2

Baldev Singh

......Petitioner

versus

State of Punjab

...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK

¶11

Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate , Mr.J.S. Thind, Advocate Mr. Vivek K. Thakur,Advocate for the petitioners.

¶15

Mr. Amit Chaudhary, Advocate for the State.

¶16

VIJENDER SINGH MALIK , J.

¶17

The petitioners Pavitar Singh, Harpreet Singh , Gurdev Singh, Balhar Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Paramjit Singh by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. M- 27022 and 36117 of 2012, on one side and two petitioners who are identically named as Baldev Singh by way of Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-39805 of 2012 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2051 of 2013, on the other side, seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.125 dated 30.10.2009

¶18

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-27022, 36117,39805 of 2012 & Crl. Misc. No.M-2051 of 2013 3

¶19

(Annexure P-1)at Police Station Subhanpur,District Kapurthala for an offence punishable under sections 148,323,324 and 427 read with section 149 IPC,to which sections 326 and 307 IPC have been added later on and the cross-version for an offence punishable under sections 148,323,324 and 427 read with section 149 IPC. The persons named in the beginning,however,seek anticipatory bail in the cross-version while two persons by the name Baldev Singh seek anticipatory bail in the FIR.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioners Pavitar Singh and others has submitted that Pavitar Singh is attributed an injury to Sukhjinder Singh on his right wrist, which is described as abrasion and is a simple injury. He has further submitted that Harpreet Singh is attributed an injury on the left wrist of Maan Singh, which is described as abrasion at serial No.3 in his MLR. Coming to Gurdev Singh, it is submitted that he is attributed two injuries to Mangat Ram, one on right shoulder and the other on right leg and both were simple. He has further submitted that Balhar Singh is attributed blow with iron rod on the right side of the head of Sarpreet Singh and back of Balkar Singh and both the injuries were simple. Sukhdev Singh is said to have been attributed a sword blow with which he is said to have caused a simple injury on right wrist of Sarpreet Singh and lastly Paramjit Singh is said to have caused three injuries, one each to Sarpreet Singh, Balkar and

¶21

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-27022, 36117,39805 of 2012 & Crl. Misc. No.M-2051 of 2013 4

¶22

Maan Singh with reverse side of spade and all these injuries were found simple. According to him, these are the cases based on version and cross-version, in which the FIR was lodged by Balhar Singh, who is one of the petitioners. He has further submitted that the version from the other side is belated. According to him, Balhar Singh and Paramjit Singh are themselves injured in the occurrence. He has further submitted that the trial court would have to decide after taking evidence as to which party is the aggressor. According to him, the petitioners have joined the investigation and the weapons used by them have been recovered.

¶23

Learned counsel for the other petitioners have submitted that Sarpreet Singh has suffered 12 injuries, Maan Singh 5 injuries, Mangat Singh 3 injuries,Sukhjinder Singh 4 injuries and Balkar Singh 8 injuries. According to them, Paramjit Singh on the other side received only 1 injury on his elbow, which was grievous and Balhar Singh received two injuries, one on little finger and another on elbow, which were simple. They have further submitted that an enquiry was conducted by senior police officials who have clearly found that the investigating officer had openly levelled allegation against the SHO of forcing him to register a case on the statement of Balhar Singh before the statement of anyone on the other side was recorded. According to them, the investigating officer had clearly said that the other side with

¶24

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-27022, 36117,39805 of 2012 & Crl. Misc. No.M-2051 of 2013 5

¶25

more injuries was there in the hospital and statement of a person on their side should have been recorded first but on the pressure of the Station House Officer, he had to record the statement of Balhar Singh.

¶26

Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation except one Baldev Singh, and that the weapons have been recovered.

¶27

The number of injuries found on the person of the petitioners Pavitar Singh and others, who are accused in a cross-version and the report of the senior officer clearly show that manipulation has been done in registration of the case. Attempt has been made by the Station House Officer to show that Balhar Singh came first to the police station and lodged the FIR and the other side came thereafter and on a statement of person on their side only cross-version is recorded. The number of injuries on the persons of Sarpreet Singh, Maan Singh, Mangat Singh, Sukhjinder Singh and Balkar Singh are 32 in number while injuries on the persons of Paramjit Singh and Balhar Singh, the only two persons injured on the side of Pavitar Singh are only three. Such a small number of injuries may even be claimed to have been self suffered to make out a false counter version. There is report that SHO exercised his authority to get the version of Balhar Singh recorded before version of other injured could be recorded. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the question as to who is the

¶28

Crl. Misc. Nos.M-27022, 36117,39805 of 2012 & Crl. Misc. No.M-2051 of 2013 6

¶29

aggressor party would arise before the trial court. Prima-facie the petitioners Pavitar Singh and others appear to be aggressors, who then manipulated the fact that their case was got registered first.

¶30

In these circumstances, the petitioners Pavitar Singh and others in Criminal Misc. No.M-27022 and 36117 of 2012 are not entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, both the petitions filed on their behalf are dismissed. The other petitioner Baldev Singh son of Mohinder Singh in Crl. Misc. No.M-39805 of 2012 and Baldev Singh son of Jarnail Singh in Crl. Misc. No.M-2051 of 2013 appear to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, both these petitions are allowed. The order dated 17.12.2012 passed in Crl. Misc. No.M-39805 of 2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.

¶31

Baldev Singh son of Jarnail Singh, the petitioner in Crl. Misc. No.2051 of 2013 is ordered to be released on anticipatory bail in the event of his arrest to the satisfaction of the arresting/investigating officer subject to the conditions laid down under section 438 sub clause 2 (i)(ii) and (iii) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

¶32

January 25, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE

Pavitar Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pavitar Singh and Ors. 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dharminder Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Dheeraj Vs State of Haryana

Deepak @ Deepu Vs State of Haryana

Phinno Kaur @ Sukhchain Kaur Vs State of Haryana

Baldev Singh Vs State of Punjab

Ashok Garg and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.