AMANDEEP SINGH @ AMMU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TERSELY , the facts & material, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the instant petition for anticipatory bail filed by petitioner Amandeep Singh alias Ammu s/o Virender Singh and emanating from the record, as claimed by the prosecution, are that on 13.11.2011, complainant Rajinder Kaur, widow of Ram Gopal Singh Dulat (for brevity "the complainant"), her son Amrinder Singh @ Ricky, their relative Parveen Kumar s/o Prem Chand, were going in their car, bearing registration No.PB -13Z -0040. Amrinder Singh @ Ricky was driving the car. At about 9.30 PM, as soon as, they crossed the railway bridge, Dhuri Road, Sangrur, in the meantime, petitioner Amandeep Singh alias Ammu s/o Virender Singh along with his other co -accused came there (at the spot) in two cars from the opposite side. They halted their car in front of the car of the complainant, surrounded and illegally detained them. All the accused were stated to be armed with pistol, kirpan, baseball and other lethal weapons. They raised a lalkara that "let Amandeep Singh alias Ricky be not spared today". They forcibly dragged him out of the car. Thereafter, accused Sukhwinder Singh alias Sukhi s/o Parminder Singh fired shots with his revolver, which hit on both of his legs. Ricky fell down on the ground on receipt of the injuries. Subsequently, accused Sultan Singh s/o Ajaib Singh gave kirpan blows on the back side of his head, whereas the petitioner gave baseball bat blows on his person with the intention to kill him.

(2.) LEVELING a variety of allegations and narrating the sequence of events, in detail in the FIR (Annexure P1), in all, the complainant claimed that the accused have hatched a criminal conspiracy, formed an unlawful assembly, armed with deadly weapons, illegally detained them and repeatedly caused the injuries to her son Amrinder Singh alias Ricky, culminating into his death in the pointed process. In the background of these allegations and in the wake of statement of the complainant, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and his other co -accused, vide FIR No.391 dated 14.11.2011 (Annexure P1), on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under sections 148, 302, 341 and 120 -B read with section 149 IPC and Section 25 of the Arms Act by the police of Police Station City, Sangrur in the manner depicted here -in -above.

(3.) HAVING exercised and twice remained unsuccessful before the Court of Addl Sessions Judge, now the petitioner has preferred the present petition for anticipatory bail in the indicated criminal case, invoking the provisions of section 438 Cr.PC.