JAGAT RAM THAPAR Vs. INSPECTOR DILBAGH SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application for cancellation of bail of the accused respondents, who successfully got such concession from the Court of Mr. R.G. Ahluwalia, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Ludhiana.

(2.) THE petitioner herein, one Jagat Ram Thapar Commission Agent of Ludhiana, reported commission of offence under sections 304/307/148/149, Indian Penal Code, at police station Kotwali, District Ludhiana, vide F.I.R. No. 394 dated 6.12.1984. According to his allegations, the accused respondents came in a jeep in the market in front of the shop of the petitioner. The police allegedly had come enquiring about the purchase of some stolen wheat. One Ram Parkash allegedly was given fists and kick blows by a member of the police party. This led to commotion and lot of people of the market collected. Police officials then fired two shots, one hit the petitioner Jagat Ram Thapar on his forehead, Ram Parkash, the person who had been given fists and kick blow died at the spot while in a handcuffed position. The police party then removed his handcuffs and left the scene of the occurrence on their jeep. The respondents were arrested for the crime. The police made a request before the learned Magistrate on 30.1.1984 that the only offence found against the accused -respondents was under section 352, Indian Penal Code, and that being bailable they should be admitted to bail. The learned Magistrate readily acceded to the request and granted bail to the accused -respondents.

(3.) THE State of Punjab was made party on the last date of hearing and was required to produce the investigation file. Mr. Bachittar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Punjab State, submits that there is no positive evidence yet to confirm whether the injury found on the forehead of the petitioner was caused by a fire -arm. He further maintains that the post -mortem of Ram Parkash deceased has highlighted that he had a diseased heart and possibly he collapsed at the spot. From this particular it is contended that the offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder is not disclosed to have been committed. In this light, the order of the learned Magistrate is sought to be supported and so does Mr. Naginder Singh, learned counsel for the accused -respondents.