BHOLA SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel.

(2.) The prosecution has come with a case that the complainant party as also the accused party had some dispute about the purchase of a piece of land, which is situated adjacent to the houses of each of them. The house of the complainant and the accused are situated opposite to each other with a distance of about 80 meters. It is alleged that there was not exchange of words on a day earlier to the date of occurrence i.e. 3.1.88, in which Surendra Singh threatened to kill Richhpal Singh and his brother. It is alleged that on 3.1.88 at about 6 PM. Richhpal Singh alongwith his cousin brother Randhir Singh was standing outside the house of Richhpal Singh. At that time, Surendra Singh, accompanied by his companions Jitendra Singh, Rajendra Singh, Amarjeet Singh, Bhola Singh, Jasbeer Singh and Mandarsingh who were all armed with either lathies, guns and Gandasis and were riding on a tractor belonging to Surendra Singh. He started the tractor towards the house of Richhpal Singh. When Richhpal Singh saw that the tractor is coming towards their house, he immediately went into his house by a small door kept in the main gate of the house. It is alleged that Surendra Singh collided the tractor with the main gate of the house by which a portion of the main gate fell down and some portion of it was broken. The tractor went inside the house to some distance. It is alleged that Satpal Singh who was inside the house came out when he heard the noise of gun fire. It is further alleged that one gun was fired outside the gate and when Satpal Singh saw that the accused was bringing the tractor inside his house after breaking the door he came to one side but the tractor was so taken by Surendra Singh that Satpal Singh fell down with the impact of the front wheel of the tractor and then his leg was crushed and causing fracture of tibia and fibula and certain other injuries were caused to him. One more fire was made to kill Richhpal Singh but that did not hit him and thereafter, it is alleged that the accused took away the tractor back to their house.

(3.) Mr. H.S. Sandhu, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellant for the accused-appellant Bhola has submitted that no overt act has been assigned to accused Bhola Singh. It is alleged that he came on the tractor armed with lathi and inflicted on injury to anybody and, therefore, he should be released on bail. It was also submitted that the accused has been recently married and it will be unjust to keep him behind the bars. In this respect, he placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Chhinder Singh Vs. State, 1986 Cr. L.R. (Raj.) 117 .