BEANT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners are accused in complaint case titled Thana Singh v. Beant Singh and others under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The petitioners contend that they were arrayed as accused in F.I.R. No. 79 dated 30.7.1994 for the offences under Sections 304/34 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and after investigation of the case, the challan was presented in the Court under Section 304-A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found that prima facie case under Section 304 I.P.C. was made out and committed the case to the court of Session. The petitioners moved an application in the court of Session in the said F.I.R. case. The learned Sessions Judge released the petitioners on bail in connection with offence under Sections 302/304/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 6.6.1995 found that prima facie case under Sections 304/34 IPC was made out and framed a charge accordingly.

(2.) THE complainant being not satisfied with the investigation of the case and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed in the Court, filed a private complaint in the Court of J.M.I.C. The complainant is the brother-in-law of the deceased. The petitioners contend that statement of Joginder Singh in the F.I.R. case and the complaint of Thana Singh indicate that there is no difference between the two versions and the facts alleged against them are the same.

(3.) THE charge in the F.I.R. case as per F.I.R., Annexure P-2, is under Sections 304/34 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Sessions Judge had heard the bail application considering it to be a case under Sections 302/34 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and he released the petitioners on bail. Therefore, the petitioners may be released on bail in connection with the private complaint case also. Perusing the complaint, in which it is mentioned that Beant Singh (petitioner No. 1) fired a shot from his gun towards the brother-in-law of the complainant and the fire shot hit his brother-in-law just under the chin of his throat. When this is the position, even framing of the charge under Sections 304/34 IPC will not lead to the finding that alleged acts of the petitioners even as per the FIR were not serious. I refrain from commenting in this bail application as to what charge (under which section) should be framed in a complaint case. It can be seen that though the challan was filed for the offence under Section 304-A of the IPC, the trial Court was pleased not to frame the charge under Section 304-A of the IPC. The carrying of fire arms and firing in such a situation is itself a serious matter. Therefore, even considering that the petitioners are released in connection with the F.I.R. case, when they are not released on bail in connection with complaint case, I do not find it proper to interfere and reverse the said order. I fully endorse the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in his order dated 18.3.1997 (Annexure P-7) rejecting the bail. This petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.