BALJINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner seeks regular bail in a case registered against him for the offences under Sections 307. 332. 353. 186. 148/149 Indian Penal Code ('IPC' - for short) and Sections 3 and 4 of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. 1984 ('Act' - for short).

(2.) The FIR in the case has been registered on the basis of memo received from Sub-Inspector Willium Jeji. SHO. Police Station City Sangrur. On 4.6.2009. the Sub-Inspector was present at Police Station. Sangrur along with force to maintain law and order. Sh. Kuldeep Sharma. PPS. Deputy Superintendent of Police. Sub Division. Sangrur was also present. At about 9.00 p.m. a mob of about 150-200 persons armed with weapons and brick-bats came from the side of main bazaar (sadar bazaar) under the leadership of Manna. Ex-Sarpanch of village Mangwal along with others. Manna. Ex-Sarpanch raised a lalkara not to leave the police personnel alive on that day and they were to take revenge for the death of Kaka. The persons who had assembled were warned by Sh. Kuldeep Sharma. DSP. Sub-Division. Sangrur through a loud-speaker fitted on his vehicle. However. some persons from the gathering pelted stones and brickbats at the police station. Warnings were again given. Thereafter. Lakha with an intention to kill DSP Kuldeep Sharma attacked him with a 'dang' and the blow inflicted by him hit on the head of DSP Kuldeep Sharma and he fell down. The mob further became unruly. DSP Kuldeep Sharma was taken to Government Hospital. Sangrur in an injured condition. The act of the persons leading the mob to attack at the police station. it was held. makes out the offences as mentioned above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is not named in the FIR and he has no concern whatsoever with the FIR. He has not committed any offence as mentioned in the FIR. The petitioner is also not connected with any person mentioned in the FIR. It is also submitted that Vijay Kumar who is similarly situated has been granted the concession of bail by this Court vide order dated 5.11.2009 in Crl. Misc.No. M-23948 of 2009.In response. learned State counsel has submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to the concession of bail. The petitioner in fact is involved in committing serious offences and therefore. he is not entitled to the concession of bail.