The High Court of Punjab & Haryana granted pre-arrest bail to Bagga Singh, President of Dalit Welfare Sabha, in an FIR alleging affray and assault. The court noted the petitioner joined investigation and custodial interrogation was unnecessary.
Petition allowed; interim anticipatory bail order dated 08.11.2012 made absolute.
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. Misc. No.M- 35227 of 2012
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Crl. Misc. No.M- 35227 of 2012 Date of Decision: 28.01.2013
Bagga Singh
..... Petitioner
Versus
The State of Punjab
.... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK
Present:Mr. HPS Ishar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anmol Grewal, AAG, Punjab for the State.
Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for the complainant.
VIJENDER SINGH MALIK, J.
Bagga Singh, the petitioner seeks pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No. 20 dated 20.03.2012 at Police Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur, for an offence punishable under sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 341 , 427 and 506 read with section 149 IPC.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is a President of Dalit Welfare Sabha. According to him, in the FIR nothing specific is alleged against him. He has further submitted that in the FIR Bagga Singh, President and his companions
Crl. Misc. No.M- 35227 of 2012 2
are said to have started throwing bricks, on account of which front glass of the car of the complainant was broken and the complainant and his companions saved themselves by running away from the spot. According to him, thereafter, a supplementary statement was made by Rajiv Kumar, who has stated that Bagga Singh used a kirpan by borrowing it from one Kala and raised a lalkara and thereafter he gave a blow with the kirpan, which had hit Rajiv Kumar on his left knee. According to him, this version comes directly in conflict with the version of the complainant Pardeep Kumar, who is an eye witness of the occurrence. He has further submitted that the FIR has been got registered falsely to settle scores with the petitioner. He has further submitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has admitted that the petitioner has joined the investigation. She has, however, opposed the bail plea.
Learned counsel for the complainant has submitted, on the other hand , that the FIR was not lodged by an eye witness of the occurrence. According to him, the version in the supplementary statement is coming from an eye witness of the occurrence and in the same, the role of Bagga Singh is stated in clear terms. According to him, Bagga Singh used a kirpan and gave a blow with it on left knee of Rajiv Kumar and he is, therefore, not entitled to pre-arrest bail.
Crl. Misc. No.M- 35227 of 2012 3
It is a case where the occurrence took place on a brick kiln where katcha bricks were being shaped. The petitioner is stated in the FIR itself to be a president and he claims himself to be a President of Dalit Welfare Sabha. The FIR is got registered by Pardeep Kumar, who clearly claims himself to be an eye witness of the occurrence. There is no allegation of use of a weapon other than katcha bricks, which were lying at the spot. The petitioner has already joined the investigation and his custodial interrogation is not required in this case.
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, without
commenting on the merits of the case, I find the petitioner to be entitled to pre-arrest bail. Hence, the petition is allowed. The order dated 08.11.2012 granting interim anticipatory bail to the petitioner is made absolute.
January 28, 2013 (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) dinesh JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to pre-arrest bail despite allegations of offence under sections 148, 323, 324, 326, 341, 427 and 506 read with section 149 IPC.
Whether the petitioner having joined investigation absolves the need for custodial interrogation.
Bagga Singh
The State of Punjab
Vijender Singh Malik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
