PRITPAL SINGHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by one Pritpal Singhalto be released on bail.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that the petitioner and his son i.e.co-accused Suresh Singhal are the owners of a house situated at BehraEnclave, New Delhi. They wanted to dispose the same of. Deceased ShyamSunder and Krishan Lal and injured Hans Raj and his brother Raj Kumaralias Raju were carrying on the business of property dca.hng under the nameand style of M/s. Vijay Properties at Bahadurgarh (Haryana). S/Shri TilakRaj, Tarsem Lal and Sarvar Lal all residents of Gurdaspur (Punjab) wantedto purchase the abovesaid property and a deal was struck for the purchaseof the said property for a consideration of Rs. 35 lacs. However, the saidconsideration was not passed on in full to the sellers and the same wasalleged to have been taken by the abovesaki property dealers, yet they werebringing pressure on the seller to execute the sale deed in respect of the saidproperty in favour of the proposed buyers. The sellers were, however, notready to submit to their demands. Deceased Shyam Sunder and his brotherRaju approached the petitioner and his son on March 3, 19'91 and tried topressurise them to execute the sale deed, but they were not ready for thesame till they received the complete consideration. It led to a flaming row.Subsequently to resolve the abovesaid dispute the matter was referred for anamicable settlement to one Lala Harkishan Dass. With the said end in viewa meeting was held at the office of Lala Harkishan Dass at Nangloi at 4 p.m.on 4/03/1991. The deceased Shyam Sunder and Krishan Lal andinjured Hans Raj and R.aj Kumar reached the abovesaid office of LalaHarkishan Dass on 4/03/1991 at the abovesaid time. The petitioneralongwith the other two accused persons reached thereat 5.10 p.m. OneSubhash Mahajn an acquaintance of Lala Harkishan Dass also reachedthere in his Fiat' car which he has parked outside the office of LalaHarkishan Dass and left the same unlocked. There was exchange of some hotwords in between the deceased Shyam Sunder and accused Suresh Singhal.Accused Suresh Singhal is illeged to have taken out his revolver and firedat deceased Shyam Sunder, ll led to a stampede and all the persons presentexcept Hans Raj and Raj Kumar ran for their safely .As per the additional.statement of Shri Raj Kumar when accused Suresh Singhal started firing atShyam Sunder deceased, then Shri Raj Kumar and deceased Krishan Lal andinjured Hans Raj Tried to catch hold the ahove -named accused. AccusedSuresh Singhal thereupon exhorted his father i.e. Shri pritpal Singhal tofinish them all. Co-accused Roshan Lal caught hold of Shri Raj Kumar.Accused Suresh Singhal and the petitioner thereupon fired at deceasedKrishan Lil and Hans Raj. The petitioner asked co-accused Roshan Lalto bring his rifle from his Maruti Car. Shri Krishan Lal fell in front of theshop of Harkishan Dass and injured Hans Raj fell at the corner of NihalVihar colony. Shri Raj Kumar after having been released by Roshan Lalleft the place of occurrence and went to his house at Bahadurgarh to informthe other members of his family.

(3.) It has been urged for and on behalf of the petitioner that thepetitioner is innocent. He has been falsely implicated in the present case.The information with regard to the present occurrence was given to thepolice as many as four times on 4/03/1991 i.e. at 5.25 p.m. (D.D. 16A),5.50 p.m. (D.D. No. 17), 6.45 p.m. (D.D. No. 1SA) and 6.48 p.m.(D.D. No. 19A). Yet the name of the petitioner does not find a mention inany of the above reports. The learned Counsel has thus contended that itproves the innocence of the petitioner.