RACHPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the instance of the petitioner, under Sections 324/323/34 Indian Penal Code on 28.7.2000. On 6.8.2000, the offence under Sec. 226 Indian Penal Code was added through D.D.R. No. 20 dated 6.8.2000. In the statement made by the petitioner, it is alleged that on 28.7.2000, around 7.30 a.m. when the petitioner was standing in the street, Baljit Singh and his brother Balwinder Singh s/o Chanchal Singh came in a Bajaj scooter. They were followed by younger brother Laddi who was also on a scooter. Their father Chanchal Singh was also coming on the cycle. All of them stopped in front of the house. Chanchal Singh gave a lalkara and said to catch hold the petitioner and to teach him a lesson for having row with them. Baljit Singh attacked the petitioner with a datar and injured the petitioner on the right side of his head above the ear. Balwinder Singh attacked the petitioner with a danda. Laddi held the petitioner by the hair and threw him down. He also injured the petitioner with his fists. Balwinder Singh is said to have hit the petitioner on the head with the lang. The incident was witnessed by Jaswant Singh and the brother of the petitioner. After injuring the petitioner, the accused went away on their respective vehicles. On 30.7.2000, Baljit Singh made a statement giving a totally contrary version of the incident. In his statement, it is stated that the petitioner hit the father of Baljit Singh on his head. No explanation whatsoever is given, of the injuries which have been suffered by the petitioner, in the statement. The medico-legal report of the petitioner also indicates that the skull of the petitioner had been fractured with an incised wound. The injury on the father of Baljit Singh has also been described as dangerous to life. Clearly, this is a case of cross-version. It is yet to be determined at the trial as to who was the aggressor. Furthermore, the injury sustained by the petitioner not having been explained by Baljit Singh, may possibly lead to an adverse inference at the stage of trial. However, without going into the merits of the respective case of the parties, I find that this is a fit case for grant of bail.

(2.) In view of the above, bail to the satisfaction of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar. Petition allowed. <span class='hidden-print'> ( <a href='Judgement.aspx?q=All India Criminal Law Reporter]2000]4]&p=1&pos=86&qType=4'>Previous</a> <a href='Results.aspx?q=All India Criminal Law Reporter]2000]4]&p=1&rsv=C&qType=4'>Hitlist</a> <a href='Judgement.aspx?q=All India Criminal Law Reporter]2000]4]&p=1&pos=88&qType=4'>Next</a> ) </span>