BALWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, namely, Balwinder Singh @ Doctor and Jagjit Singh @ Jagga, approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Sec. 438 Cr.P.C. for grant of anticipatory bail to them in case FIR No.29 dtd. 29/5/2018 registered under Sec. 302 read with Sec. 34 IPC at Police Station Amir Khas, District Fazilka. The petitioners have been summoned as an additional accused to face trial by the Additional Sessions Judge, Fazilka vide order dtd. 7/2/2019.

(2.) Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 submits that petitioner No.1 was found innocent during investigation and was kept in column No.2 of the final report filed under Sec. 173(2) Cr.P.C. The challan was filed against co-accused Baljit Singh. Learned counsel further submits that no offence is made out against petitioner No.1 and there was no evidence to connect him with commission of offence. As per allegations levelled in the FIR, petitioner No.1-Balwinder Singh @ Doctor caught hold of the complainant. In the detailed inquiry conducted by SHO, Police Station Amir Khas and on perusal of footage of CCTV camera installed at the shop, it was found that the petitioner was not involved. Statement of owner of the shop, namely, Rakesh Kumar, was recorded by the Police under Sec. 161 Cr.P.C. regarding the incident as the incident occurred in front of his shop. Said Rakesh Kumar was present at the time of occurrence. In the statement, neither petitioner No.1 was named nor any role has been assigned to him. After detailed investigation, petitioner No.1 was found innocent. Learned counsel also submits that on the basis of same set of allegations, petitioner No.1 has been summoned whereas he was neither present at the place of occurrence nor came in the car. He has been implicated due to previous enmity. While summoning under Sec. 319 Cr.P.C., there was no material evidence with the prosecution to summon petitioner No.1 still he has been summoned. Petitioner No.1 is ready to join the Court proceedings and to abide by all terms and conditions to be imposed by this Court or by the trial Court. Learned counsel for petitioner No.1 has also relied upon judgment rendered by this Court in Bajinder Singh and another vs. State of Punjab, 2015(3) RCR (Criminal) 950 in support of his contentions.

(3.) Learned State counsel has not disputed the factum of declaring petitioner No.1 innocent and subsequently, summoning as an additional accused after recording statement of complainant. However, learned State counsel has opposed grant of anticipatory bail to petitioner No.1 on the ground of seriousness of the offence.