Sukhpal Singh vs State of Punjab

Dr. Sarojnei Saksena, J.

Mr. Cheema submits that from the F.I.R. it is evident that only extortion is attributed to the petitioner. He has not fired at the deceased. During investigation, the statements of the two alleged independent witnesses Jagjit Singh and Jaswant Singh were recorded by the police. Both of them have denied the presence of the petitioner at the time of the incident. The challan was presented but the petitioner''s name was not mentioned as an accused. Later on, on the prayer of the complainant, the learned trial Court has summoned the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Mr. Gill submits that the petitioner is the main accused who is connected with prior beating. When this incident took place both of them were armed with rifles at the relevant time. No doubt, challan is not presented against him but he has been rightly summoned by the trial Court as he is the main cause and alleged to be main accused for commission of this offence.

F.I.R. is reproduced in the petition which finds mention that the petitioner gave a lalkara to his brotherinlaw Teja Singh to fire at the deceased. During investigation, two independent witnesses Jagjit Singh and Jaswant Singh supported the petitioner''s defence. They did not mention his presence at the time of the incident whereupon the police declined to file the challan against the petitioner. But taking into consideration the evidence collected during investigation, the Sessions Court has summoned the petitioner under Section 319 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A close scrutiny of the F.I.R. reveals that to avenge the petitioner''s prior beating this incident took place and the deceased was fired at. The petitioner was or was not present at the time of incident is a question of fact and about which the evidence is yet to be adduced.

Considering this fact but without commenting on their evidentiary value, the bail petition is dismissed.