SATWINDER SINGH @ SANJAY KALSI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) F .I.R. No. 32 dated 8.3.1999 has been registered by Police Station "D" Division, Amritsar under Sections 302, 34 and 392 I.P.C. The petitioner's application for bail was dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar and therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court under Section 439 Cr.P.C. for bail.

(2.) THE F.I.R. has been registered on the statement Om Parkash, the father of the deceased-Satish Kumar, wherein he had alleged that on 8.3.1999 at about 8.30 p.m., his son Satish Kumar who was working with him in the jewellery market left for his house in the motorcycle. It has also been alleged that when the complainant reached the street in which his (complainant's) house is situated, he found his son lying smeared with blood. According to him, the motorcycle and a blood stained knife were also lying nearby. It is also alleged that Satish Kumar who was taken to the hospital, was declared dead.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is not named in the F.I.R., that there is no allegation in the F.I.R. to implicate him directly or even indirectly and that no identification parade was also conducted. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that there is no allegation in the F.I.R., that any article or cash was taken and, therefore, no offence under Section 392 I.P.C. is also made out. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the only ground on which the petitioner is sought to be implicated, is the extra judicial confession allegedly made by the petitioner to an unknown person and whose statement was recorded nearly 2 months after the alleged occurrence. The learned counsel for the petitioner also contends that the co-accused Munish Kumar has also been granted bail by this Court. 4. The learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contends that the petitioner and others had made extra judicial confession before Jaswant which was recorded on 1.5.1999. According to the learned counsel for the State, the petitioner who was armed with a knife, had caused injuries to the deceased. The learned counsel for the State also contends that the petitioner had made an another extra judicial confession to one Baldev Singh (Sarpanch) which was recorded on 4.5.1999 implicating himself. The learned counsel for the State further contends that in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the petitioner, Rs. 44,000/- in cash, 53.380 grams of gold and 2 gold rings were recovered from the clinic of the petitioner which is situated in his house. According to the learned counsel for the State, one of the rings contained the inscription "Om" being the name of the father of the deceased, while the other contained the initial "S" indicating the name of the deceased Satish Kumar. The learned counsel for the State also contends that the statement of one Jaspal Singh was recorded on 18.3.1999 who has stated that the petitioner and 3 others were talking to each other about the occurrence and their involvement in the same. Pointing out these factors, the learned counsel for the State contends that the petitioner is not entitled to be released on bail.