GURWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioners Gurwinder Singh and Gurmit Singh have filed the present petition under Section 439(2) read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("CrPC" - for short) and Article 227 of the Constitution of India for cancellation of the anticipatory bail granted to Amritpal Singh and Sukhwinder Singh (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) vide order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure P5) passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar.

(2.) IT is submitted that petitioner No. 1 is a law student and studying in Law College at Faridkot and is aged about 19 years. Petitioner No. 2 is the father of petitioner No. 1 and is an agriculturist and is aged about 42 years. On 30.6.2008, Gurmit Singh (petitioner No. 2) and his son Gurwinder Singh (petitioner No. 1) were to irrigate their paddy crop. Gurwinder Singh (petitioner No. 1) had gone to have a round of their fields and he noticed that there was a breach in the water channel and the water was flowing to the fields of Amritpal Singh (respondent No. 2). Amritpal Singh (respondent No. 2) was armed with 'kahi' (spade) and Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No. 3) was armed with 'gandasi' and they were sitting in their fields. Gurwinder Singh (petitioner No. 1) asked respondents Nos. 2 and 3 as to why they had caused a breach in the flow of water. Suddenly, Amritpal Singh (respondent No. 2) raised a lalkara that they would cause breach of the water and they could do whatever they want. Gurwinder Singh (petitioner No. 1) started plugging the breach and in the meantime, Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No. 3) with an intention to kill Gurwinder Singh (Petitioner No. 1) inflicted a 'gandasi' blow on his head. Gurwinder Singh (petitioner No. 1) fell down with his face towards the ground and while he was lying on the ground Amritpal Singh (respondent No. 2) inflicted injury with his 'kahi' (spade). Gurmit Singh (petitioner No. 2) intervened and Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No. 3) gave a 'gandas' blow on his head. Gurmit Singh (petitioner No. 2) raised an alarm of 'mar ditta mar ditta'. Then both the assailants (respondents Nos. 2 and 3) ran away from the spot with their respective weapons. The petitioners were brought to the Civil Hospital, Muktsar and after noticing serious head and brain injuries, they were referred to the Adesh Hospital, Muktsar for the purpose of X-ray and CT Scan. In the meanwhile, other relatives of the petitioners came to the hospital and took the petitioners to Bharat Brain Hospital, Bathinda on 30.6.2008. After their examinations by a team of doctors headed by Dr. Dinesh Gupta, Neuro Surgeon, the gravity, risk and possible complications were explained. They were given option to shift the patient to any other healthcare centre. However, it was insisted by the injured that they be admitted and treated in the said hospital. Gurwinder Singh (petitioner No. 1) remained admitted in the Hospital from 30.6.2008 to 10.7.2008. His medical treatment and examination was conducted. ASI Shamsher Singh, Police Station Sadar Muktsar along with HC Surinder Singh reached Civil Hospital, Muktsar. HC Surinder Singh sought opinion of the doctors with regard to the fitness of the injured for recording their statements. The doctor opined that they were unfit to make their statements. On 1.7.2008 ASI Shamsher Singh on receipt of a telephonic call from the Police Chowki Thermal Plant Bathinda along with HC Surinder Singh, Rajinder Singh Constable, PHG Nathu Ram reached Bharat Brain Hospital, Bathinda and got written opinion of the doctors with regard to the fitness of the injured for recording their statements. The doctors opined that Gurwinder Singh (petitioner No. 1) son of Gurmit Singh (petitioner No. 2) was unfit to get his statement recorded. However, Gurmit Singh (petitioner No. 2) was declared fit to get his statement recorded. On which the statement of petitioner No. 2 was recorded which was read over to him and by understanding it and taking it to be correct, he signed it in English which was verified by ASI Shamsher Singh.

(3.) AMRITPAL Singh (respondent No. 2) filed an application for grant of anticipatory bail before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar on 17.7.2008. Thereafter Sukhwinder Singh (respondent No. 3) also filed an application on 19.7.2008 for grant of anticipatory bail. On coming to know of the filing of the applications for grant of anticipatory bails by respondent Nos. 2 and 3, the petitioners filed objections before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar opposing the applications for grant of anticipatory bail. The State also opposed the applications grant of anticipatory bail. The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Muktsar vide her order dated 14.8.2008 has allowed the applications for the grant of anticipatory bails to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 vide order dated 14.8.2008 (Annexure P5). The cancellation of which is sought by the petitioners in the present petition. The learned Additional Sessions Judge noticed the contentions of the learned counsel for the accused (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). It was contended that as per statement of the complainant Gurmit Singh (petitioner No. 2) the alleged occurrence took place at 10/10.15 a.m. whereas as per the MLR they were admitted in the hospital at 9.15 a.m. It was observed that the injured cannot be admitted in hospital for injuries before the alleged occurrence and that the supplementary statement showing the time of occurrence at 8.15 a.m. seemed to be a cover up exercise by the police.