Judgment:
CRM-M No.23745 of 2014 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM No.M-23745 of 2014 Date of decision :
19. 08.2014 Jarnail Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. R.S. Sekhon, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J.S. Sekhon, AAG, Punjab for the State. **** Mehinder Singh Sullar, J.
(Oral) Petitioner has preferred the instant petition for the grant of concession of regular bail, in a case registered against him along with his other main co-accused namely Kuldeep Singh, Joginder Singh and Manjit Singh etc., vide FIR No.137 dated 05.09.2013, on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A (the offences punishable under Sections 302, 452, 506, 148 read with Section 149 IPC were later on added), by the police of Police Station Shahkot, Jalandhar.
2. Notice of the petition was issued to the State. KUMAR SUMIT201408.20 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23745 of 2014 -2- 3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after deep consideration over the entire matter, to my mind, the present petition for regular bail deserves to be accepted in this context.
4. Precisely, the prosecution, inter alia, claimed that on 4.09.2013 at about 9.20 PM, some dispute had erupted between the accused party and complainant party. Subsequently, it was claimed that main co-accused Kuldeep Singh had brought his tractor attached with the land leveler (Krah), without blowing any horn and at a very high speed. He immediately turned and rammed the tractor into Lachho Devi, mother of complainant Jagdish Singh s/o Dilawar Singh (for brevity “the complainant”.), culminating into her death. Neither any specific role nor any particular part is attributed to the present petitioner in the initial FIR. The petitioner was subsequently involved in this case in the wake of supplementary statement of the complainant, which appears to be an improvement and after thought. Initially, the instant case was registered, on the statement of the complainant against the accused for commission of offences punishable under Sections 279 and 304-A IPC, by virtue of impugned FIR (Annexure P-1). On 05.09.2013, police recorded his improved supplementary statement (Annexure P2) and added the offences punishable under Sections 148, 302, 452 & 506 read with Section 149 IPC for the reasons best known to it. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the present case was registered against the accused u/ss 279 & 304-A IPC in the wake of statement of the complainant himself. Thereafter, he made improvement and changed the basic version of prosecution contained in the initial FIR in his KUMAR SUMIT201408.20 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23745 of 2014 -3- supplementary statement (Annexure P2). However, it remained an unfolded mystery as to why he has not so stated and incorporated all the improved facts in the original FIR (Annexure P1), which, he has subsequently mentioned in his supplementary statement (Annexure P-2). In that eventuality, what is the evidentiary value, acceptability and admissibility of such supplementary statement of complainant, inter alia, would be a moot point to be decided during the course of trial after the receipt of evidence by the trial Court.
5. Be that as it may, petitioner was arrested on 28.02.2014. Since then, he is in judicial custody and no useful purpose would be served to further detain him in jail. There is no history of his previous involvement in any other criminal case. The final conclusion of trial will naturally take a long time. Moreover, all the main allegations of causing death of Lachhho Devi are assigned to main accused Kuldeep Singh, who has already been granted the concession of regular bail, by way of order dated 14.08.2014, rendered in CRM-M-19926 of 2014 by this Court.
6. Not only that, Manjit Singh, similarly situated co-accused of petitioner, was also granted the concession of regular bail, by means of order dated 14.05.2014 (Annexure P-3) rendered in CRM No.M-4117 of 2014 by this Court. Therefore, I see no reason not to extend the same benefit of regular bail to the present petitioner as well under the similar set of circumstances.
7. In the light of aforesaid reasons, taking into consideration the totality of facts and circumstances, emanating from the record, as discussed here-in-above and without commenting further anything on merits, lest it KUMAR SUMIT201408.20 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M No.23745 of 2014 -4- may prejudice the case of either side, during the course of trial of main case, the instant petition for regular bail is accepted. The petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on his furnishing adequate bail and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court.
8. Needless to mention that, nothing observed here-in-above, would reflect on the merits of the main case, in any manner, as the same has been so recorded for a limited purpose of deciding the present petition for regular bail. 19.08.2014 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) sumit.k Judge KUMAR SUMIT201408.20 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document