SUKHA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER made in the petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioners during the pendency of the trial of the case arising out of FIR No. 114 dated 03.11.2012, under Sections 307/336/506/148/149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, registered at Police Station Kulgarhi, District Ferozepur.

(2.) AS per the FIR registered at the instance of Harbans Singh -complainant, he had lent an amount of Rs. 15,00,000/ - to Bhupinder Singh @ Saba for doing work of commission agent. In order to discharge his liability, Bhupinder Singh @ Saba had issued a cheque of Rs. 15,00,000/ - but the same bounced due to insufficient funds. Accordingly, he filed a criminal complaint against Bhupinder Singh @ Saba. Bhupinder Singh @ Saba started threatening the complainant to withdraw the criminal complaint. On 03.11.2012 at about 3.30 P.M. when Harbans Singh -complainant along with his son -in -law Mahavir Singh was present in the fields and Sukhwinder Singh son of complainant was cultivating the land with a tractor, Bhupinder Singh @ Saba armed with.12 bore rifle, Gurjant Singh @ Bhatti armed with.315 bore rifle, Rattan Singh armed with a baseball bat and four unknown persons came there on two cars. Rattan Singh raised a lalkara to teach a lesson to the complainant for demanding the amount of Rs. 15,00,000/ - and for instituting a criminal complaint against Bhupinder Singh @ Saba. Bhupinder Singh @ Saba then fired towards Harbans Singh -complainant and his son -in -law Mahavir Singh with an intent to kill them but they saved themselves by lying on the path. Sandeep Singh also fired at Sukhwinder Singh, son of complainant, with an intent to kill him but Sukhwinder Singh hid himself behind the tractor and saved himself. Gurjant Singh started firing from his.315 rifle but the alarm raised by complainant and his two relatives attracted Balwinder Singh, elder brother of Harbans Singh -complainant at the spot and on seeing him all the accused persons ran away from the spot with their respective weapons.

(3.) LEARNED State counsel has opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioners by submitting that the petitioners along with others were members of unlawful assembly, common object of which was to kill the complainant, his son -in -law as well as son. He further submits that apart from the present case, the petitioners are involved in other criminal cases. As regards the trial of the case, he submits that though the charges stand framed, yet the prosecution has not examined any witness in support of its case.