BALBIR SINGH @ BITTU Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRAYER made by the petitioner is for the grant of regular bail to him in case bearing FIR No. 126 dated 26.5.2009 under Sections 302, 323, 324, 148, 149 IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act registered at Police Station Rama Mandi, Jalandhar.

(2.) THE aforementioned FIR was registered on a written complaint submitted by Nath Pal wherein he alleged that when on 25.5.2009 at about 8.30 p.m. he, alongwith Vijay Kumar, Hans Raj and others, was protesting the death of Sant Rama Nand, which took place in Austria, two cars came at a high speed from the side of village Dakoha and some persons were sitting in those cars. Petitioner -Balbir Singh @ Bittu armed with a gun, Sukha son of Sohan Singh, empty handed, Bhajan Singh son of Milkha Singh armed with a danda, Saroop Singh son of Passi armed with a sword, Jeeta son of Saroop Singh armed with a baseball bat alongwith 2/3 more persons alighted from the cars. The petitioner opened fire from his gun in the air on account of which a quarrel ensued between the two parties. The other people accompanying the petitioner used derogatory remarks against the caste of the complainant and his companions. After the occurrence, the complainant party gathered in the village Gurudwara and after taking respectables of the village with them, proceeded towards the house of the petitioner. When they reached the house of the petitioner, the latter fired a shot which went through and through the left knee of Vijay Kumar who succumbed to the same.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that pursuant to the registration of the FIR, the initial investigation was conducted by Inspector Lakhwinder Singh, SHO, Police Station Sadar, Jalandhar but no material came on record from which the identification of the person, who had fired the shot could be proved nor the weapon used in the occurrence was identified or recovered. The investigation was then transferred to Inspector Harjinder Singh, who also did not find any evidence regarding the identity of the assailant and the weapon used in the commission of crime. On 3.8.2009, the investigation was handed over to Special Investigating Team (SIT) consisting of Superintendent of Police (HQ), Hoshiarpur, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sub Division, Garhshankar and Deputy Superintendent of Police, R -2, Jalandhar by the Deputy Inspector General, Jalandhar Range. After associating a number of persons from both the sides and recording their statements, the SIT found that at the time of the occurrence, a number of persons had gathered and heated arguments took place between them. During those heated arguments, a shot was fired which hit Vijay Kumar, who died as a result thereof. However, it could not be verified as to who had fired the shot. Further, on 9.1.2010, the SIT completed its investigation and submitted a second detailed report. It was mentioned therein that six suspects were interrogated and the weapons of some of the villagers were recovered and sent to the Laboratory for comparison. As per the report of the Laboratory, the weapons and the empties did not match. Accordingly, no definite identification of the person, who had fired the shot, could be made and also the weapon could not be identified. On 17.12.2010, another SIT was constituted on the application of the complainant. The second SIT also interrogated certain people, surveyed the spot and investigated the matter. It recovered.315 bore rifle from four suspects and sent the same for comparison to the Laboratory with the empties recovered from the spot. Inspite of it, the result of the investigation remained the same. On 18.3.2011, another SIT was constituted on the application of the complainant but its result was the same. Ultimately, the prosecution filed untraced report dated 16.9.2011. The complainant opposed the same by filing a protest petition. Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate rejected the cancellation report and adjourned the case for recording of evidence of the complainant on his protest petition. On the basis of the same, Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jalandhar vide order dated 4.12.2012 summoned the petitioner and others. Apprehending his arrest, the petitioner moved the Court of Sessions for anticipatory bail but remained unsuccessful. He then approached this Court but his request for anticipatory bail was dismissed. He then surrendered on 7.12.2013 and applied for the grant of regular bail. Vide order dated 18.2.2014, learned Sessions Judge dismissed his application. Prayer has, accordingly, been made for the release of the petitioner on bail.