AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a first petition under Sec. 439 Cr.P.C. for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in FIR no.86 dtd. 21/4/2021 registered under Ss. 323, 325, 341, 307, 34 IPC (Sec. 302 IPC added later on) at Police Station Sadar Samana, District Patiala.

(2.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the FIR was registered on the statement of Jaspreet Singh, who is son of the deceased Sukhdev Singh and in the said FIR, he has stated that he had witnessed the occurrence which had taken place at 7:30 PM on 20/4/2021 in which, three persons were stated to be involved. It has been highlighted that in the FIR it has been stated that "now I have come to know that out of the persons who had beaten my father, one of them is Sohi Baba". It is further mentioned in the FIR that said statement has been given on 21/4/2021 with respect to the incident that took place on 20/4/2021 after consulting his brother Lovepreet Singh. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the same clearly shows that the complainant, who is stated to have seen the occurrence, had not said that Sohi Baba was the person whom he saw inflicting injuries. It is also argued that the petitioner is Amarjit Singh and is not known as Sohi Baba. Further reference has been made to supplementary statement of the complainant dtd. 23/4/2021 in which, he has stated that since, on 21/4/2021, he was nervous so he forgot to mention that on 19/4/2021 Amarjit Singh Sohi Baba, Rajinder Singh alias Chichu and Arun Kumar alias Chhotu had chased his father to beat him up. It is submitted that there is no complaint with respect to any incident occurring on 19/4/2021 and there is nothing to prima facie show that Amarjit Singh is Sohi Baba. It is also submitted that in any case that said statement dtd. 23/4/2021 is not reflected in the examination-in-chief of the complainant Jaspreet Singh, who has been examined as PW-1. It has been argued that the petitioner was initially granted interim bail vide order dtd. 24/5/2021 (Annexure P-10) as initially, the FIR had been registered under Ss. 323, 325, 341, 307, 34 IPC and the petitioner had joined investigation. On 27/5/2021, i.e. after one month and seven days of the incident, Sukhdev Singh had died and thus, on 27/5/2021, the petitioner was arrested, in violation of law laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pradeep Ram vs State of Jharkhand reported as 2019 Latest Case Law 527 SC inasmuch as, permission of the Court was not sought before arresting the petitioner. It is argued that after arrest of the petitioner on 27/5/2021, the prosecution tried to introduce certain additional facts by recording second supplementary statement of Jaspreet Singh on 29/5/2021 (Annexure P-3), as per which, he had further investigated the matter and had stated that certain things had taken place in front of his brother Lovepreet Singh and thus, Lovepreet Singh was sought to be introduced as a witness. It has been argued that a perusal of the FIR would show that the FIR was registered after consulting his brother Lovepreet Singh and said Lovepreet Singh did not get any statement recorded till 29/5/2021. It is submitted that statement of Lovepreet Singh dtd. 29/5/2021 is thus, apparently an afterthought and at any rate, the only eye witness in the present case is Jaspreet Singh, who has now been examined as PW-1 and in his evidence, he has denied having given the supplementary statement dtd. 29/5/2021. It is further stated that even the supplementary statement dtd. 23/4/2021 does not find mention in his examination-in-chief and that the said statement of PW-1 is self- contradictory as, in the examination-in-chief, the complainant had stated that he knew the present petitioner Amarjit Singh Sohi whereas, in the cross-examination he has stated that in fact, he did not know him earlier. It is submitted that either way, the petitioner would have a legal argument to raise inasmuch as, in case, the complainant knew the petitioner then in the FIR, he would have stated that it is the petitioner who had inflicted injuries upon the deceased whereas, instead he had stated in the FIR that "now I have come to know". It is submitted that in case, the cross-examination is taken to be true then in that situation, no test identification parade had been conducted. It is also highlighted that said PW-1 has also stated in his examination-in-chief that he does not remember whether he had made a statement to the police on 27/5/2021 or not and the police had not arrested the accused in his presence. It is thus, highlighted that the case of the prosecution to the effect that on 27/5/2021, the petitioner was arrested in the presence of the complainant also stands demolished. It is thus, submitted that in the present case, the identity of the petitioner is not proved and the petitioner has been in custody sine 27/5/2021 and there are 28 prosecution witnesses and out of which, one witness has been examined, thus, the trial is likely to take time. It is also submitted that the petitioner is not involved in any other case and two co-accused of the petitioner namely, Jagtar Singh and Yaskaran Singh @ Karanvir Singh @ Kazran, have also been granted the concession of regular bail by this Court.

(3.) Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present petition for regular bail and has submitted that mentioning of the statement "now I have come to know" could also mean that the complainant knew the petitioner but did not know his name and it is subsequently, that the name had come to the knowledge of complainant. It is further submitted that even if the subsequent supplementary statements are not taken into consideration then also, since the name "Sohi Baba" appears in the FIR itself, thus, the test identification parade of the petitioner is not required. It is submitted that the petitioner does not deserve the concession of regular bail.