MANPREET SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Prayer in this petition filed under Section 439 Cr.P.C. is for grant of regular bail to the petitioner in case FIR No.135 dated 20.08.2017 under Sections 302, 307, 323, 324, 452, 447, 511, 506, 427, 120-B, 148, 149 IPC, Sections 25, 27 of the Arms Act and Sections 3(1)(X), 3(2)(V) of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, registered at Police Station Lopoke, District Amritsar.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the aforesaid FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Harjit Singh and interestingly Harjit Singh has not named the petitioner in the FIR. It is only after registration of the FIR, he has made a supplementary statement of even date to the effect that at the time of recording the initial version, he was under fear and confusion and therefore, could not state the name of some other persons including the petitioner. He further states that the injury which led to the death of Sukhdev Singh was allegedly caused by Rupinder Singh.

(3.) Learned State Counsel, on instructions from the investigating officer, does not dispute the period of custody of the petitioner and states that no doubt Sukhdev Singh died because of gun-shot injury caused by Rupinder Singh, however, he states that in his supplementary statement, complainant-Harjit Singh has specifically named the petitioner.