MEHMOOD AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER in this petition is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner, Mehmood Akhtar, son of Hazi Fquiria Mohd., resident of Mohalla Sehjadpura, Eidgah Road, Malerkotla, District Sangrur, who has been booked for having committed the offences punishable under Sections 307, 323, 324 and 506 read with Section 34, IPC, in a case arising out of FIR No. 93, dated 26.11.2012, registered at Police Station, Sandhaur, District Sangrur. Learned counsel contends that initially the allegations were levelled against three persons, namely, Faquir Mohd., Mehmood Akhtar (petitioner) and Sattar Mohd., for causing injuries to Sarabjit Kaur and her daughter -in -law, Saranjit Kaur. He further contends that during investigation the allegations levelled by the complainant side with regard to involvement of Faquir Mohd. were found false and, as such, he was declared innocent. He further submits that there is no categoric medical opinion that the injuries received by Sarabjit Kaur were sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature and, as such, the mischief of Section 307, IPC, is not attracted in the present case. He further contends that the petitioner is behind the bars from 20.3.2013 and after completion of the investigation, the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr. P.C.) has already been submitted before the learned Court below. He further contends that while exercising the jurisdiction under Section 193, Cr. P.C., the learned Additional Sessions Judge has proposed to summon Faquir Mohd. to face trial with the petitioner and his co -accused, Sattar Mohd., therefore, the trial would take sufficient long time to conclude. He also contends that the petitioner is neither required nor involved in any other case. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Atma Singh v. State of Punjab, : 1980 PLR 719, wherein a Division Bench of this Court has drawn a distinction between the injuries declared as "dangerous to life", "endangering life" and "sufficient to cause death."

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the State on instructions from SI Randhir Singh of Crime Branch, Mohali, very fairly concedes that during investigation Faquir Mohd. was found innocent, however, after filing of the charge -sheet (report under Section 173, Cr. P.C.) and magnitude of the case, learned Trial Court has summoned him to face trial along with the petitioner and his co -accused Sattar Mohd. He further concedes that there is no categoric medical opinion that the injuries on the person of Sarabjit Kaur were sufficient to cause death, however, he submits that the medical opinion expressed by Dr. Daljinder Singh is very clear that the abdominal injury on the person of Sarabjit Kaur was dangerous to her life. However, he admits that the petitioner is behind the bars from 20.3.2013.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material available on record.