AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M.M.S. Bedi, J.—This order will dispose of the above noted four petitions i.e., Crl. Misc. No. M-24097 of 2010, filed by Tarlochan Singh alias Tochi; Crl. Misc. No. M-24331 of 2010, filed by Raj Kumar alias Raju; Crl. Misc. No. M-27956 of 2010, filed by Mainpal; and Crl. Misc. No. M-31248 of 2010, filed by Ishar Singh, for the grant of pre-arrest bail in FIR No. 79 dated 23.06.2010, under Sections 323, 325, and 341/34 IPC, (under Sections 420, 167, 211 & 120-B IPC added later on) registered at Police Station, Julkan, District Patiala.
The original FIR was registered on the basis of statement of Avtar Singh on the basis of a letter written by him to Gurcharan Singh ASI, for registration of a case alleging that Baljit Singh, Karam Singh, Nasib Singh, sons of Ishar Singh and Ishar Singh waylaid and attacked him as he had asked them as to why they had picked quarrel with his brother Jagroop Singh. Karam Singh had allegedly given a gandasi blow on the forehead of Avtar Singh. Karam Singh had also inflicted a gandasi blow on the little finger of his left hand. Baljit Singh allegedly gave a dang blow on his elbow of right arm. Ishar Singh and his son Nasib Singh gave leg blows. On raising alarm, Major Singh and Shamsher Singh, his younger brother reached on the spot and rescued him. Shamsher Singh brother of Avtar Singh had admitted him in the hospital.
As per the above said FIR, Baljit Singh, Karam Singh and Nasib Singh sons of Ishar Singh and Ishar Singh accused had been attributed injuries on the person of complainant Avtar Singh. The police of Police Station, Julkan, during the course of investigation, was informed that the accused party had also suffered injuries at the hands of the complainant as there was a quarrel between two groups in the village. The accused party in the FIR was admitted in Rajindra Hospital, Patiala, for treatment of their injuries and the injuries suffered by them fell u/s 326 IPC. The Investigating Officer had some suspicion regarding the injuries who on further investigation found that the injuries u/s 326 IPC had been fabricated by accused persons in connivance with employees of Rajindra Hospital. The police, on the basis of such investigation, picked up some employees of Rajindra Hospital i.e., Monu son of Rajinder Singh, Bikram Singh son of late Suresh Kukmar and Mangal Singh son of late Buta Singh. The above said persons were arrested by the police, under Sections 420, 167, 211 and 120-B IPC, on 03.08.2010. Their police remand was obtained by the police and subsequently again vide application dated 04.08.,2010, the police sought remand for three days of the said accused alleging that three accused named in the FIR had connived with Baljit Singh and others and fabricated the injuries u/s 326 IPC. Bikram Singh and other two accused confessed before the police regarding the fabrication of the injuries u/s 326 IPC, by fracturing the bone of the palm of Baljit Singh in Govt. Quarter of accused Monu by taking Rs. 20,000/-. The pills and weapons used by Monu and Bikram Singh, for fabricating the injuries were recovered along with sum of Rs. 20,000/-. Vide application for remand on 04.08.2010, it was averred that some more cases were to be detected.
Tarlochan Singh Petitioner, apprehended that Bikram Singh who had been arrested in the case would implicate him being the Chairman of the Government Employees Union and other members of the Union. Tarlochan Singh, Petitioner moved an application for the concession of anticipatory bail. The Petitioner was granted interim bail on 09.08.2010 with a direction to join the investigation. The Petitioner claims that he joined the investigation but the APP informed the Court on 11.08.2010, that the Petitioner had not joined the investigation, as such, the application for pre-arrest bail filed by the Petitioner was dismissed. The Petitioner also claims that he has been involved in the case on the basis of statement made by Bikram Singh that the Petitioner hatched conspiracy with him and fabricated injuries on the person of Baljit Singh to bring the injuries within the ambit of Section 326 IPC.
Counsel for the Petitioners have argued that Tarlochan Singh, Mainpal and Raj Kumar are the employees of Rajindra Hospital and the employees are divided into two groups and there is political rivalry between the two groups. The Government employees Union has appointed Tarlochan Singh whereas Bikram Singh accused another employee is head of other group called Karamchari Dal. Sonu and Mangal are also the associates of Bikram whereas the Petitioners Raj Kumar and Mainpal are with Tarlochan Singh. Petitioners Tarlochan Singh and Mainpal claim that they have been falsely implicated in the case on the basis of the evidence got prepared by Bikram Singh.
I have heard the counsel for the Petitioners and carefully gone through the police file.
Petitioners Tarlochan Singh, Raj Kumar and Mainpal cannot claim that they have been involved in the case without there being any material against them. Statement of Narinder Singh has been recorded by the Investigating Agency to the effect that Raj Kumar and Tarlochan Singh had made extra judicial confession that on 23.06.2010, Raj Kumar and Tarlochan Singh were present in the quarter of Sonu in the presence of Bikram Singh where Mangal Singh told them that Ishar Singh and Baljit Singh had a fight and injury u/s 326 IPC, had to be created. Mangal Singh, Raj Kumar and Tarlochan Singh, introduced Ishar Singh. For sum of Rs. 20,000/-, the injury u/s 326 IPC, was agreed to be prepared. Mainpal was also joined with them and injury u/s 326 IPC, was fabricated by cutting the finger with blade and by creating fracture of the finger bone.
The Petitioners are admittedly the employees of Rajindra Hospital. The plea that they have been falsely implicated at the instance of Bikram Singh, member of opposite employees'' union is not acceptable, at this stage. The allegation that being the employees of a hospital they indulged in fabrication of injuries which ultimately interfered in the administration of justice by the police as well as by the Court. It is certainly a case of custodial interrogation. The investigation being at threshold, the Petitioners cannot be granted the concession of pre-arrest bail. Whether the evidence collected against them is of weak nature can be considered at the time of grant of regular bail. So far as Ishar Singh is concerned, he has paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/-for fabricating an injury on the person of Baljit Singh to create the defence in cross-version in a criminal case. Such an act is of serious nature.
No extra ordinary exceptional circumstances exist for the grant of pre-arrest bail to the Petitioners.
10.All the above said four petitions are dismissed.
Interim orders stand vacated.