Hardev Singh vs State of Punjab

K. Kannan, J.—The petition is for anticipatory bail for alleged offence under Sections 307, 353, 186, 332, 341 and 34 of the Indian Penal

Code in case FIR No.248 dated 08.12.2011 at Police Station Kotwali, District Patiala. The incident in which the petitioner is said to have been

involved had an earlier history of the petitioner''s brother having been involved in a criminal case registered against him for having caused damage

to the Railway''s property that gave rise to registration of case for offence u/s 154 of the Railways Act, lodged at the instance of the Railway

Protection Force. In respect of the same incident another case has already been registered u/s 279 and 427 of the IPC at Police Station Railway

Police Station, Patiala. On being produced before the Court, it appears that the petitioner''s brother had given a complaint against the police

contending that cash of Rs.4200/- and mobile phone had been snatched by the police officials.

The contention is that on account of the fact that the petitioner''s brother had made a complaint to the Magistrate, the petitioner has been falsely

implicated in the case. The incident is said to have been taken place when the investigating officer in the case registered against his brother and two

other police officials were going in Gypsy vehicle and at that time petitioner''s brother, his father and two others including the petitioner were said to

have attacked the police officials with iron rods and pipes. In the case that had been originally lodged reporting the incident as having taken place

on 08.10.2011, there has been a reference to four persons as having caused injuries without naming the petitioner but the petitioner was implicated

by name only through supplementary statements received from the police themselves.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that apart from the non-mention of his name in FIR, some overt-acts had been

attributed to the petitioner through the statement of Banarsi Dass. It is stated therein that the petitioner had been armed with iron pipe and he along

with three others stopped the Gypsy and attacked with the intention to kill him. The injury which the petitioner has suffered on the head is said to

have been caused by the petitioner''s father Ranjit Singh. The statement of Ashok Kumar implicates the petitioner as a person who has caused

injury on the back of Jang Bahadur with iron pipe. Jang Bahadur has stated that the petitioner had attacked on his back with iron rod. The injury

on the head suffered by Banarsi Dass has been entered in the MLR as ""simple."" The statement of Ashok Kumar does not record any injury on

himself, while the same is stated to have been suffered by Jang Bahadur by hitting on the back with iron road. These injuries are also stated to be

simple in nature.

It appears that Charanjit Singh and Ranjit Singh have already been apprehended and they are still in confinement. As far as petitioner is

concerned, the fact that his name does not figure in the first complaint and the injury stated to have been caused by him was only on Jang Bahadur

which is also simple injury, I would give to the petitioner the benefit at this stage and I am of the view that he is entitled for being released on bail in

the event of his arrest by the investigating officer to his satisfaction and as per the conditions as laid down u/s 438 (2) of the Cr.P.C. He will join

the investigation as and when required by the police and will not tamper with evidence or hamper the investigation.