Beant Singh vs State of Punjab

S. S. Sudhalkar, J.

The petitioners are accused in complaint case titled Thana Singh v. Beant Singh and others under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The petitioners contend that they were arrayed as accused in F.I.R. No. 79 dated 30.7.1994 for the offences under Sections 304/34 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and after investigation of the case, the challan was presented in the Court under Section 304A of the Indian Penal Code. However, the Chief Judicial Magistrate found that prima facie case under Section 304 I.P.C. was made out and committed the case to the court of Session. The petitioners moved an application in the court of Session in the said F.I.R. case. The learned Sessions Judge released the petitioners on bail in connection with offence under Sections 302/304/34 IPC and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act. The learned Sessions Judge vide his order dated 6.6.1995 found that prima facie case under Sections 304/34 IPC was made out and framed a charge accordingly.

The complainant being not satisfied with the investigation of the case and the report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. filed in the Court, filed a private complaint in the Court of J.M.I.C. The complainant is the brotherinlaw of the deceased. The petitioners contend that statement of Joginder Singh in the F.I.R. case and the complaint of Thana Singh indicate that there is no difference between the two versions and the facts alleged against them are the same.

In the FIR, the translated version of which has been quoted in the petition, the case of the complainant Joginder Singh son of Mangal Singh, in short, is that petitioner No. 1 Beant Singh armed with 12 bore gun, petitioner No. 2 Gurmit Singh armed with rifle and petitioner No. 3 Shera armed with .12 bore gun came in their jeep and stopped near the door of the house of Harbans Singh. The petitioners got down from the jeep and started abusing Harbans Singh and Sukhchain Singh for inviting Hamir Singh to his house as Hamir Singh is their enemy. It is further contended therein that on hearing the noise, the brother of the complainant Niranjan Singh and his brotherinlaw Thana Singh and his Bhabi Palo also went out and those who had heard the noise also went out and collected at the spot. Nobody answered from the house of Harbans Singh. On the intervention of the people, all the persons and the complainant started towards the Phirni and after crossing the turn, they went to Munsha Singh''s house; then petitioner No. 1 Beant Singh started abusing by taking the name of Sukhchain Singh, whose house was nearby. Despite the attempts of the complainant and others to dissuade Beant Singh, he fired a gun shot which hit the brother of the complainant Niranjan Singh and he died on the spot. A copy of the complaint is marked as Annexure P3 in this case. The allegation in the complaint, of course, is that when the brotherinlaw of Joginder Singh and others were trying to dissuade Beant Singh from doing so, he fired a shot from his gun towards his brotherinlaw and the fire hit him just under the chin and his brotherinlaw Niranjan Singh fell down. Therefore, there is an allegation in the complaint that the shot was fired at Niranjan Singh. The allegations against the petitioners are serious. They had all gone with the fire arms. The difference in the versions is whether the shot was aimed at Niranjan Singh the deceased or it was not aimed at him though hit at him. It is clear from the FIR that Niranjan Singh was also amongst the persons who had gone along with the complainant of the F.I.R.

The charge in the F.I.R. case as per F.I.R., Annexure P2, is under Sections 304/34 of the I.P.C. The learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that the learned Sessions Judge had heard the bail application considering it to be a case under Sections 302/34 and Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act and he released the petitioners on bail. Therefore, the petitioners may be released on bail in connection with the private complaint case also. Perusing the complaint, in which it is mentioned that Beant Singh (petitioner No. 1) fired a shot from his gun towards the brotherinlaw of the complainant and the fire shot hit his brotherinlaw just under the chin of his throat. When this is the position, even framing of the charge under Sections 304/34 IPC will not lead to the finding that alleged acts of the petitioners even as per the FIR were not serious. I refrain from commenting in this bail application as to what charge (under which section) should be framed in a complaint case. It can be seen that though the challan was filed for the offence under Section 304A of the IPC, the trial Court was pleased not to frame the charge under Section 304A of the IPC. The carrying of fire arms and firing in such a situation is itself a serious matter. Therefore, even considering that the petitioners are released in connection with the F.I.R. case, when they are not released on bail in connection with complaint case, I do not find it proper to interfere and reverse the said order. I fully endorse the reasons given by the learned Sessions Judge, Ferozepur in his order dated 18.3.1997 (Annexure P7) rejecting the bail. This petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.

This petition is dismissed. The order of interim bail granted on 7.4.1997 stands terminated.