BHOPAL SINGH @ BHOLI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case of double version and the only thing common in the two versions is that occurrence took place on 2nd of June, 1989, at 5.00 PM. The first version was provided by the side of the accused at 6.05 PM i.e. after one hour of the occurrence. It was provided by Devinder Singh, an injured person. The second version was provided by one Amarjit Singh, who is not connected with any of the two parties and belongs to Patiala, at 7.25 PM i.e. after about 2-1/2 hours of the occurrence. According to the version provided by Devinder Singh, the land in dispute (which possibly led to the present occurrence) was in his possession. and the other party trespassed into it and forcibly ploughed the same. It is further alleged by him that they caused injuries with deadly weapons to six persons including the petitioner numbering more than 26. The injuries caused were both by blunt and sharp-edged weapons and simple as well as grievous in nature. According to the order of the Sessions Judge dated June 14, 1989, there was fracture of the right arm and in the left parietal bone of petitioner Bhopal Singh. In the second version, provided by Amarjit Singh subsequently, none of the injuries except one of Kuldip Singh has been explained. The one which may be said to be explained is said to have been caused by striking his head against the bumber of the jeep. The land according to that version was in possession of Harbans Singh and the same was being ploughed by Kala Singh and Rajinder Singh his employees. It is nowhere mentioned in that version that deceased Ranjit Singh too was an employee of Harbans Singh as now claimed by the prosecution or that he was doing any odd job in the land on behalf of the latter before he was hit. According to the Patwari who prepared site plan, the place where the fight originated was in possession of Kuldip Singh as he has stated that chari crop belonging to Kuldip Singh was sown there. Ranjit Singh deceased is said to have been hit by the pistol shot fired by the petitioner. Bullet was recovered from the dead-body and the same as well as the pistol alleged to have been used were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. Punjab, Chandigarh for examination. The report placed on the file runs as under "No definite opinion can be given regarding firing of one 6.35 m.m. jacketed bullet marked B/1 contained in parcel 'A' from the 6.35 m.m. Webley and Scott pistol No. 144276 marked W/1 in the Laboratory, as the bullet under reference bears rifling marks whereas the existing barrel is unrifled."

(2.) IN the light of the aforesaid circumstances particularly the one provided by the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory, without any prejudice to parties case on merits, I feel it to be a fit case to issue direction under section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and order that in the event of his arrest, petitioner Bhopal Singh shall be released on bail on furnishing personal bond with two sureties in the sum of Rs. 10,000/- each to the satisfaction of the arresting officer subject to the conditions that he shall make himself available for interrogation by a police officer as and when required, that he shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade him from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer and that he shall not leave India without the previous permission of the trial Court.