AMRIK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer made in this application is for the grant of bail to the petitioner (Amrik Singh), who has been challaned under Section 307/34, Indian Penal Code. The learned Judge, Special Court, Judicial Zone, Patiala, declined this prayer earlier vide its order dated 16tui of August, 1984.

(2.) With the promulgation of the Terrorist Affected Areas (Special Courts) Act, 1984 (Act No. 61 of 1984) a special provision has been made vide Section 15(5) of the Act to the following effect: Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, no person accused of a scheduled offence shall, if in custody, be released-on bail or on his own bond unless. (a) the Public Prosecutor has been given an opportunity to oppose the application for such release, and (b) where the Public Prosecutor opposes the application, the court is satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that he is not guilty of such offence and that he is riot likely to commit any offence while on bail.

(3.) A reading of the above provision would indicate that in a case where the prayer for bail is opposed by the Public Prosecutor (as in the present case) the Court has to be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of having committed a scheduled offence and that he is not likely to commit any offence while on bail Section 307, Indian Penal Code, is admittedly, one of the scheduled offences under the aforesaid Act. The prosecution allegation in the present case is to the effect that the petitioner along with his co-accused; Gurjit Singh, had attacked Jagit Singh, injured person. A specific part has been assigned to the present petitioner that he gave 3 or 4 blows with a knife on the abdomen and the left side of the chest of Jagjit Singh. The learned Special Court has enumerated the injuries found on the person of Jagjit Singh in its order, dated 16th of August, 1984. It is mentioned that on opening the abdomen peritoneam was found to be full of blood and there was a cut in the left side of the liver. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there is a reasonable ground for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offence for which he is being prosecuted. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is alleged to have committed assault under a grave and sudden provocation, that is, he was accused of having illicit relations with the daughter of Sukhdev Singh. No finding in this behalf can possibly be recorded at this stage in the said matter. The bail application is consequently dismissed. Bail Application dismissed.