PAVITAR SINGH AND ORS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners Pavitar Singh, Harpreet Singh , Gurdev Singh, Balhar Singh, Sukhdev Singh and Paramjit Singh by way of Criminal Miscellaneous Nos. M- 27022 and 36117 of 2012, on one side and two petitioners who are identically named as Baldev Singh by way of Criminal Miscellaneous No. M-39805 of 2012 and Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-2051 of 2013, on the other side, seek pre-arrest bail in a case registered by way of FIR No.125 dated 30.10.2009 (Annexure P-1)at Police Station Subhanpur,District Kapurthala for an offence punishable under sections 148,323,324 and 427 read with section 149 IPC,to which sections 326 and 307 IPC have been added later on and the cross-version for an offence punishable under sections 148,323,324 and 427 read with section 149 IPC. The persons named in the beginning,however,seek anticipatory bail in the cross-version while two persons by the name Baldev Singh seek anticipatory bail in the FIR.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners Pavitar Singh and others has submitted that Pavitar Singh is attributed an injury to Sukhjinder Singh on his right wrist, which is described as abrasion and is a simple injury. He has further submitted that Harpreet Singh is attributed an injury on the left wrist of Maan Singh, which is described as abrasion at serial No.3 in his MLR. Coming to Gurdev Singh, it is submitted that he is attributed two injuries to Mangat Ram, one on right shoulder and the other on right leg and both were simple. He has further submitted that Balhar Singh is attributed blow with iron rod on the right side of the head of Sarpreet Singh and back of Balkar Singh and both the injuries were simple. Sukhdev Singh is said to have been attributed a sword blow with which he is said to have caused a simple injury on right wrist of Sarpreet Singh and lastly Paramjit Singh is said to have caused three injuries, one each to Sarpreet Singh, Balkar and Maan Singh with reverse side of spade and all these injuries were found simple. According to him, these are the cases based on version and cross-version, in which the FIR was lodged by Balhar Singh, who is one of the petitioners. He has further submitted that the version from the other side is belated. According to him, Balhar Singh and Paramjit Singh are themselves injured in the occurrence. He has further submitted that the trial court would have to decide after taking evidence as to which party is the aggressor. According to him, the petitioners have joined the investigation and the weapons used by them have been recovered.

(3.) Learned counsel for the other petitioners have submitted that Sarpreet Singh has suffered 12 injuries, Maan Singh 5 injuries, Mangat Singh 3 injuries,Sukhjinder Singh 4 injuries and Balkar Singh 8 injuries. According to them, Paramjit Singh on the other side received only 1 injury on his elbow, which was grievous and Balhar Singh received two injuries, one on little finger and another on elbow, which were simple. They have further submitted that an enquiry was conducted by senior police officials who have clearly found that the investigating officer had openly levelled allegation against the SHO of forcing him to register a case on the statement of Balhar Singh before the statement of anyone on the other side was recorded. According to them, the investigating officer had clearly said that the other side with more injuries was there in the hospital and statement of a person on their side should have been recorded first but on the pressure of the Station House Officer, he had to record the statement of Balhar Singh. Learned State counsel on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners have joined the investigation except one Baldev Singh, and that the weapons have been recovered.