HARVINDER SINGH Vs. PURAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HARVINDER Singh petitioner son of Swaran Singh deceased has filed this application under Section 439 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure for cancelling the bail of the respondent in FIR No. 85 dated 1.7.1992 under Sections 304/323, Indian Penal Code, registered on the petitioner's statement which reads as under :-

(2.) THE respondent, while posted at Police Post, Panniwal Fatta, took Swaran Singh, father of the petitioner, to the Police Post and gave injuries to him while he was in custody. Dr. Ashok Chanana found the following injuries on the person of Swaran Singh :-

(3.) MR . M.L. Merchea, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that normally a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code should have been registered but since the respondent is an Assistant Sub-Inspector, therefore, the police has knowingly converted the case against the respondent from Section 302 to Section 304, Indian Penal Code. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further contended that the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridkot, has erred in law in granting anticipatory bail to the respondent and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has taken extraneous matter into consideration while granting the anticipatory bail to the petitioner. In support of his argument, he has relied upon Pokar Ram v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 969; Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan and another, 1988 Supreme Court Cases (Crl.) 106; and Samunder Singh v. State of Rajasthan and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 737. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Pokar Ram's case (supra) that some very compelling circumstances must be made out for granting bail to a person accused of committing murder and that too when the investigation is in progress.