MUKAND SINGH Vs. SATPAL SINGH ALIAS JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS order of mine will dispose of Crl. Misc. No. 4742-M of 1992 filed by the State of Punjab as well as Crl. Misc. No. 3451-M of 1992 filed by Mukand Singh, petitioner under Section 439 (2) Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. as in both of them a prayer for setting aside the order dated 21.1.1992 of Shri Darbara Singh, Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur allowing bail to Satpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh son of Harnek Singh resident of Village Namol, Police Station Longowal, District Sangrur has been made.

(2.) IT has been alleged in the petition that Sat Pal Singh, respondent No. 1, is the main accused in this case. The case under Section 302/34 Indian Penal Code was registered against Satpal Singh, Harnek Singh, Jora Singh and Kaka Singh in case F.I.R. No. 122 dated 5.10.1991, Police Station Longowal at the instance of Mukand Singh PW who stated on 4.10.1991 that at about 8 P.M. in the area of village he went to his fields where his brother Jit Singh was stated that he was wanted by Satpal Singh, Kaka Singh, Jora Singh etc. and his brother went towards Harnek Singh and he kept on sitting there. After about 1/2 hour Mukand Singh PW heard noise 'mar ditta, mar ditta' Then Harnek Singh and others went away. The occurrence was witnessed by PW Mohinder Singh who has stated that on 4.10.1991 at about 8.30 P.M. he was going towards his fields in order to find his combine. His fields adjoin the fields of Mukand Singh PW and when he was passing by the electric motor of Antar Singh then he heard noise 'mar ditta, mar ditta' from inside the motor of Antar Singh. He reached there where electric bulb was on and he saw Satpal Singh alias Jaspal Singh armed with Kulhari causing injuries on the head of Jit Singh whereas Harnek Singh catching hold of Jit Singh from his legs. Satpal Singh gave two blows with his Kulhari on the person of Jit Singh which hit on his face. He raised a raula 'na maro, na maro', then the accused ran away. During the investigation, extra judicial confession of the accused made before one Sat Guru was also recorded.

(3.) IT is further argued by them that the learned trial Court has not taken into consideration the strong motive behind the occurrence. The learned counsel, thus, have stated that bail granted to respondent No. 1, Satpal Singh by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur is liable to be cancelled, as granting of bail cannot be justified by the facts and evidence of the case and is result of improper exercise of the discretion by the learned Additional Sessions Judge which has caused miscarriage of justice. They have cited the following authorities in defence of their arguments :-