HARINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARINDER , complainant, has moved this application under Section 439, sub-section (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for cancellation of the bail granted to Sukhjinder Singh, accused-respondent No. 2, by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, vide his order dated 1-8-1990 in a case for offences under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 of the Arms Act, inter alia on the ground that the learned Sessions Judge has taken a wrong view of the facts and circumstances of the case in coming to the conclusion that the offence would at the most amount to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, punishable under Section 304, Part II, of the Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner now wants to withdraw this petition but the learned counsel for the State supports this petition for cancellation of bail.

(2.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The brief resume of facts relevant for the disposal of this petition is that there was a land dispute between Harinder Singh, complainant, and his brother Sukhjinder Singh, accused-respondent. The grandfather of these two persons had executed a will bestowing 11 acres of land upon his son Simarpal Singh, father of the parties. The grandfather of the complainant had sown wheat crops therein. The complainant was asking to give 1/3rd share in the land, which resulted in exchange of hot words between these two brothers and their younger brother Dharmender Singh. On the next day at about 3.00 p.m., complainant, along with his wife Gurvinder Kaur (since deceased) and other witnesses was present in the courtyard of his house, while the parents and young brother of the complainant had gone to another house in connection with attending the Bhog ceremony. Suddenly, Sukhjinder Singh accused armed with a .315 bore licensed rifle arrived there and shouted that day he would give 1/3rd share in the land to the complainant. Immediately thereafter he fired the rifle shot at Harinder Singh complainant, but the wife of the latter intervened and the bullet hit her on right side of the chest and shoulder. She fell down. Sukhjinder Singh accused fired another shot with his ride which bit Gurvinder Kaur on her left hand. The accused again fired a third shot with his rifle which hit on the left arm of Harinder Singh, complainant. On the hue and cry raised by the witnesses the accused managed to escape along with his rifle. Mst. Gurvinder Kaur succumbed to the injuries on the way to the hospital.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondent then contended that the accused having not abused the liberty of bail should be allowed to remain on bail even if he has committed the offence of murder, punishable under Section 302, Indian Penal Code. In support of his contention he has relied upon the observations of the Supreme Court in The State through the Delhi Administration v. Sanjay Gandhi, AIR 1978 Supreme Court 961. In that case, it was held by the apex Court that there are different considerations in allowing bail to the accused in certain offences and for cancellation of bail. In that case, certain witnesses had turned hostile and it was held that the bail of the accused respondent cannot be cancelled by presuming that he has tampered with the evidence. No doubt, in the case in hand, there is no direct allegation of tampering with the evidence but since the accused was granted the concession of bail, on the wrong assumption of he having not committed the offence of murder, and taking in view that the brother had killed the wife of another brother, it is not a fit case where the accused should be allowed to remain on bail during the pendency of the trial.