Ved Prakash @ Pappu vs State
1993 Latest Caselaw 163 Del

JUDGMENT

Sat Pal, J.

(1) This is a petition under Section 439 Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of bail. As per allegations made in the Fir, 20-25 persons including deceased Lakhvinder had assembled in the factory of the petitioner to celebrate the engagement of the petitioner.

(2) It has further been stated in the Fir that an altercation took place between Ashok and Gulshan and deceased Lakhvinder intervened, and brought about reconciliation between the two and after sometime Rajinder, petitioner and one big eyed healthy boy stood up and started making noise and the petitioner turned out from his Factory 3 persons, namely, Shokeen, Gulshan and Nandu. At that time Ashok took out one knife from his dab which was snatched by deceased Lakhvinder. This was not liked by Ashok, Rajinder, the big eyed boy, petitioner and one other bay. it is farther alleged that Lakhvinder handed over the knife to the big eyed boy. All Stood up and Lakhvinder became angry and came out upon which Rajinder gave a call to big eyed boy, Ashok and the petitioner that deceased should not be spared and allowed to go away. Thereafter all ran after him. The petitioner and Rajinder caught hold Of Lakhvinder while Ashok and the big eyed boy gave knife blows to him.

(3) Mr. Andley, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even in terms of the allegation made in the Fir, the role assigned to the petitioner is that he Along with Rajinde.r caught hold of the deceased while Ashok and the big eyed boy gave blows. He, therefore, contended that the petitioner could not have known that Ashok and the other boy would give knife blows to the deceased. In support of his contention, the learned counsel placed reliance on two Supreme Court Judgments in the cases of Rana Partap Vs State of Haryana, 1983 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 601 and in Shambhu Kuer Vs State of Bihar, 1982 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 264 and a Judgment of this Court in the Case of Kuldip Singh Vs State,Crl.M (M) 843/91 decided on 19.8.1991. Mr. Ahluwalia, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State, however, submitted that in the present case knife blows were not given to the deceased suddenly, but the same were given after accused Rajinder had given a call to the petitioner and two others "Aaj Isko Le Lo Bach Kar Na Jai".

(4) I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. In the case of Shambhu Kuer (Supra), the petitioner had caught hold of the deceased and immediately thereafter the other accused Mandip took out a knife and started assaulting the deceased. It was, therefore, held that from the mere fact that the appellant caught hold of the deceased and scuffled with him, while Mandip took out a knife and commenced the assault, it cannot be inferred beyond reasonable doubt, that he shared the intention to murder the deceased and as such the petitioner was held liable for an offence under Section 326 and not under Section 302 IPC.

(5) In the case of Rana Partap (Supra), the Supreme Court found that the evidence was not clear whether Rana Partap and another continued to hold the deceased even after Manmohan started stabbing him nor there was any evidence to indicate that Rana Partap had common intention to do away with the deceased. In view of the said evidence, the Supreme Court set-aside the conviction of Rana Partap and another under Section 302 read with Section 34 and instead they were convicted under Section 326 read with Section 34. In the case of Kuldip Singh (Supra), the petitioner was granted bail as the role assigned to him was that he caught hold of the deceased whereupon the other accused inflicted a single knife blow on account of which deceased died.

(6) From the judgments mentioned hereinabove, it is evident that the role assigned to the petitioner concerned in those cases was that he caught hold of the deceased whereupon the other accused inflicted knife blow suddenly and the evidence did not disclose that there was any ill-feeling between the deceased and the petitioner before the occurrence. The facts of the present case are, however, different. As alleged in the Fir, the stabbing of the deceased was not sudden as there was a call by one of the accused that the deceased should not be allowed to go safe and the petitioner and other accused knew that the big eyed boy was carrying a knife which was given to him by the deceased Lakhvinder. In view of these allegations and the fact that the eye witness Raj Mohd. is yet to be examined in the trial Court, I am of the view that this is not a fit case for release of the petitioner on bail at this stage. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

(7) I may, however, point out that the observations given by me hereinabove will not have any bearing on the merits of the case.