VED PRAKASH ALIAS PAPPU Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This is apetition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. As per allegations made in the FIR, 20-25 persons including deceased Lakhvinder had assembled in the factory of the petitioner to celebrate the engagement of the petitioner.

(2.) .It has further been stated in the FIR that an altercation took place between Ashok and Gulshan and deceased Lakhvinder intervened, and brought about reconcilation between the two and after sometime Rajinder, petitioner and one big eyed healthy boy stood up and started making noise and the petitioner turned out from his Factory 3 persons, namely, Shokeen, Gulshan and Nandu. At that time Ashok took out one knife from his dab which was snatched by deceased Lakhvinder. This was not liked by Ashok, Rajinder, the big eyed boy, petitioner and one other bay. it is farther alleged that Lakhvinder handed over the knife to the big eyed boy. All Stood up and Lakhvinder became angry and came out upon which Rajinder gave a call to big eyed boy, Ashok and the petitioner that deceased should not be spared and allowed to go away. Thereafter all ran after him. The petitioner and Rajinder caught hold Of Lakhvinder while Ashok and the big eyed boy gave knife blows to him.

(3.) . Mr. Andley, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in terms of the allegation made in the FIR, the role assigned to the petitioner is that he alongwith Rajinde.r caught hold of the deceased while Ashok and the big eyed boy gave blows. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner could not have known that Ashok and the other boy would give knife blows to the deceased. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on two Supreme Court Judgments in the cases of Rana Partap VS State of Haryana, 1983 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 601 and in Shambhu Kuer VS State of Bihar, 1982 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 264 and a Judgment of this Court in the Case of Kuldip Singh VS State,Crl.M (M) 843/91 decided on 19.8.1991. Mr. Ahluwalia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that in the present case knife blows were not given to the deceased suddenly, but the same were given afteraccused Rajinder had given a call to the petitioner and two others "Aaj Isko Le Lo Bach Kar Na Jai".