Lakhwinder Singh vs State of Punjab

Vijender Singh Malik, J.—Clarification is sought by way of this application to the effect that the order dated 9.2.2012 passed in a case registered by way of FIR No. 17 dated 23.2.2010 at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar would be an order of bail in the case in which charge has been framed u/s 306 IPC with the alternative charge for the offence u/s 302 IPC. It is a case where, to begin with, the FIR was registered for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC. However, the police filed challan in this case for an offence punishable u/s 306 IPC. While framing charge, the court framed charge u/s 306 IPC but in the alternative framed charge for the offence u/s 302 IPC also. After the framing of charge, Lakhwinder Singh, the petitioner had applied for bail by way of Criminal Misc. No. M-39088 of 2011 and vide order dated 9.2.2012, bail was allowed.

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that it was a case of run-away marriage between the petitioner and the deceased. According to him, the parents of the girl were so annoyed with this marriage that they had burnt the house of the petitioner. He has further submitted that at the site of occurrence, the petitioner was found bolted inside the room while the deceased was found hanging outside the said room. He has further submitted that the challan had been submitted by the police u/s 306 IPC and he sought bail in the case by mentioning the offence u/s 306 IPC. He has submitted that the bail was granted taking the whole case into view and no difference would have occurred to the view taken by this court if the offence u/s 302 would also have been mentioned therein. He has further submitted that section 302 IPC could not be mentioned in the petition on account of mistake and, therefore, the order in question would be deemed to have been passed granting bail to the petitioner for the offence punishable under sections 306/302 IPC.

Learned State counsel with the assistance of learned counsel for the complainant, has submitted, on the other hand, that the offence committed by the petitioner is of murder and he obtained bail by concealing the fact that charge has been framed against him for an offence punishable u/s 302 IPC also. It is further submitted that the case, to begin with, was registered u/s 302 IPC and the investigating officer tried to help the petitioner by submitting challan u/s 306 IPC. It is further submitted that if section 302 IPC would have been mentioned by the petitioner in the petition, bail would not have been granted to him.

A perusal of the order dated 9.2.2012 would show that earlier to the same, the petitioner had filed an application for bail which was dismissed as withdrawn with direction to the trial court to record the statements of all the material witnesses including Dr. Sunita Mahajan within a period of five months. It was also observed in the order dated 21.7.2011 dismissing the said petition as withdrawn that in case the entire evidence of the prosecution is not recorded within 5 months, it will be open to the petitioners to approach this court again for the grant of regular bail. The trial court could not comply with the directions of this court. The above noted submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner were also there. It had also come in the statement of Naresh Kumar, the main witness of the case, that on 21.8.2008, the family members of the deceased had burnt the house of Lakhwinder Singh about which a case was registered. It had also come therein that he saw the dead body of Ome Raj (deceased) hanging and the petitioner to have been bolted inside the room.

Taking into account all these circumstances, the police filed challan u/s 306 IPC but the court framed charge not only for the said offence but also for the offence u/s 302 IPC. From the order dated 9.2.2012, it would not appear that bail would have been refused if section 302 IPC would have been mentioned in the petition. The failure to mention section 302 IPC in the petition on the part of the petitioner can only be taken as inadvertent mistake. In these circumstances, the miscellaneous application is allowed and it is clarified that vide order dated 9.2.2012, the applicant had been granted bail in the case registered by way of FIR No. 17 dated 23.2.2010 at Police Station Phillaur, District Jalandhar not for the offence punishable u/s 306 IPC only but for all the offences that may be attracted on the facts, on which the case was registered.