SUKHDEV SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sukhdev Singh and Tara Singh alias Taranjit Singh, petitioners-accused seek pre-arrest bail in case bearing F.I.R. No. 66, dated 5.6 2002 registered under Sections 447, 452, 427, 342, 506, 148 and 149 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, 1959 with Police station, Gharinda. District Amritsar.

(2.) The present case came to be registered on the statement of Rajwant Singh resident of Village Mode, Tehsil and District, Amritsar. It was stated therein that on 25.5.2002. Sukhder Singh, Balihar Singh, Baldev Singh, Shamsher Singh, Saraj Singh, Bikkar Singh, Partap Singh, Gurjit Singh and Tara Singh armed with-rifles in the company of 50-60 other persons armed with deadly weapons consisting of swords, gandasis etc. came to his house. They demolished the wall constructed on his land and shifted the same by 10-15 feet away. They further misbehaved with the women folk present there. Threat was extended to the residents of the house by the persons who had been carrying rifles swords and gandasis etc. with them. The telephones of the petitioners and neighbourers were disconnected. The case is still under investigation.

(3.) Counsel representing the petitioners-accused, while pressing for their bail has mainly contended before me that the version put up by the complainant is a crime created on papers because not a scratch or injury had been received by any residents of the house of the complainant despite the fact that more than 50-60 persons with deadly weapons had gone to his house and demolished the wall over the land belonging to the complainant. Additionally, it was pointed out by him that proceedings under Sections 107 and 151 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code') had already been 'initiated by Dr. Jaswant Singh sub-Divisional Magistrate Amritsar-II on, 27.5.2002 on the report lodged on 25.5.2002 with Police Station, Kahangarh Amritsar and now Civil Suit has also been filed by Sukhdev Singh against Inder Singh regarding the dispute between the parties. Additionally, it was submitted by him that the open land over which- the complainant claimed to be the owner in possession factually belongs to the petitioners and there was no occasion for the petitioners to go and demolish the wall constructed on this land as alleged in the report lodged.